Traffic Calming

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of the benefits of road humps and other traffic-calming measures.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Department for Transport has an extensive programme of research into the benefits of all forms of traffic calming, including road humps. Full details of current research and summaries of results of completed research are provided in the road safety and local transport research compendia, produced regularly. These are available on the department's website.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he agree that there has been an epidemic of road humps, certainly all over London, and that they do not help the police, ambulance or fire services? I doubt very much whether they add to road safety. My noble friend did not really tell the House whether they did. But they may provide a bonanza for the firms that repair suspensions and shock absorbers.
	Is it not a waste of money for local authorities—at a time when money is tight—to be putting in road humps, sometimes in streets that are unlikely to have speeding traffic? Can the Government do anything to advise local authorities to desist?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those questions. I assure him that we regard traffic-calming measures, of which speed humps are the most effective, as very significant indeed in reducing road speeds and hence accidents. The figures are quite straightforward. Research shows that a 1 mile per hour reduction on mean speeds produces a 5 to 6 per cent reduction in personal injury accidents. So they are effective.
	They are effective too for the police because speeding limits are enforced without policemen needing to be present. I bear in mind what my noble friend says about the issue of speed humps interfering with the emergency services—police, fire and ambulance—on certain occasions. The attempt is to seek to ensure that there are not speed humps on through routes. But in residential areas members of the public campaign for speed humps because they know they are safer for them and for their children.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of these humps, particularly the ones at entrances to railway stations—for example, Euston and Waterloo—are notoriously vicious and dangerous? Can there be some kind of minimal or maximum specification on the size of these humps?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are specifications. The steepest humps are in places such as railway stations because of the vast amount of pedestrian activity, sometimes unaware pedestrian activity when people are in strange and unusual surroundings and can blunder into traffic. So the speed humps are there to make sure that the traffic moves at the slowest possible speed in such congested areas.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the word traffic "calming" is rather confusing? In fact, traffic-calming measures tend to aggravate even the nicest, kindest and slowest of drivers.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think the concept of "calming" is addressed to the vehicle rather than to the personality of the driver.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is rather better to have vicious speed humps than cars that are speeding viciously from the view of a pedestrian or cyclist?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is the point. Traffic-calming measures are related to reducing accidents, particularly accidents to pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, do the Government really have their policy right? Is it not as opaque as the Minister's Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs? How does he explain that in Yorkshire a £4 million fleet of new ambulances is sitting idle because it cannot get over the road humps; and that Barnet council in London has recently made the decision to remove all the speed humps in its borough following a statement by the London Ambulance Service that speed humps cause delays and cost lives? How does he explain those two facts in the light of his answers and the Government's policy?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Viscount puts emphasis on the one borough which has taken this dramatic action and not on the other boroughs which have not. We must have regard to the needs of the emergency services. There have been some problems, particularly where speed humps have been on roads which are through routes and it has been necessary for emergency services to use them on occasions with some speed.
	Overall, the position across the country is quite straightforward: local authorities are besieged by residents seeking to have traffic-calming measures in their neighbourhood. They have to reach a judgment between the increased safety they may well provide for residents and the proper needs of the emergency services and other traffic to proceed at reasonable speed.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem is far from simple and that road humps cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience to everyone using the roads? As has been pointed out, they cause inconvenience to ambulances. One police force even said that they prevent it reaching accidents and emergencies. Why do not the Government do away with the stupid things altogether?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are more ways than one to achieve traffic calming. As the noble Earl will know, there are chicanes and flashing signs that state at what speed one should be travelling. But let me reassure him of this about traffic-calming measures. Our most recent research states that on the introduction of such calming measures, the average annual accident frequency fell by 60 per cent; child pedestrian accident frequency fell by 70 per cent; child cyclist accidents fell by 48 per cent; and there was an overall reduction of 67 per cent for all child accidents. That is a gain worth having.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that most of us who represent rural areas are besieged with applications for road humps and speed cameras because, in most villages, there are no police and people rely on self-enforcement—namely, cameras and humps—to give some peace to the residents of rural areas?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly so and provides an additional answer to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Of course a balance must be struck; we all recognise that. There may have been excessive enthusiasm in some areas that has affected routes that need to be used by the emergency services. But I do not believe that any of us denies the obvious fact that speed kills and that it is important to reduce excessive speed.

Baroness David: My Lords, am I right, as I have been told, to say that such humps are not good environmentally because cars must slow down and then accelerate, encouraging a greater use of petrol?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, any alteration in vehicle speeds involves extra fuel consumption and adds to environmental problems but, frankly, we must balance the question of the safety of our fellow citizens against that marginal environmental aspect.

Tax Harmonisation

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy in relation to the European Union's indirect tax harmonisation proposals.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indirect taxation may be harmonised only to the extent necessary for the effective operation of the internal market, and tax measures may be decided only by unanimity.
	Any change to unanimity on tax can itself be made only by unanimity. Tax matters are a key component of national sovereignty and vital to the social and economic well-being of the country. The Government have made it clear that tax must remain a matter for national governments.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend has to answer in line with his Treasury brief, but perhaps I may ask him a personal question. I promise that I will not tell the Treasury. Does not he accept that, in a 25-member European Union, it makes a lot of sense and is helpful to trade to have at least some movement towards harmonisation of indirect taxation?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I have any personality left after six and half years. That is a sacrifice that one makes in the greater cause. But even as a person I do not agree with my noble friend. As I said in my previous Answer—some of the wording was my own—tax matters are a key component of national sovereignty. I remain to be convinced that the new members of the European Community take a different view.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that he is indeed right to say that some judicious measures of indirect taxation facilitate the working of the single European market and, therefore, help British Ministers to succeed in that regard? Does he agree that those who oppose the judicious, case-by-case selection of appropriate measures are in essence against the running of a market?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have always said that we were against measures that produced unfair tax competition. We have opposed such measures since the beginning.
	However, I must tell my noble friend that those fighting for tax harmonisation have lost the support of the European Commission. First in June 2000 and then in its strategy document published in October this year, the Commission refers not to harmonisation but—in our view, rightly—to simplification, modernisation, close co-operation between tax authorities and the better application of existing rules. The battle for tax harmonisation, which we might at some stage have had to fight, no longer needs to be fought.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister welcome the recent decision reached by the French significantly to increase taxation on cigarettes for health reasons? That will also have the effect of reducing the incentive to smuggle cigarettes into the UK. Can the UK Government urge other EU member states which still have very low taxation on cigarettes to follow the French example?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not for me to comment favourably or unfavourably on the tax policies of other member states, just as we would not wish them to comment on our policies. However, although I do not know the figures for tobacco, it is worth saying that if we were to reduce our alcohol duties to the levels of those pertaining in France it would cost us £5 billion in revenue.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, Members on these Benches become worried when they hear a prestigious noble Lord, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, having to ask Ministers on his own Front Bench a Question such as this in the House. We, too, are worried that the Government may not stick to the line they are purporting; that is, that we shall be able to control our own tax affairs in this country. Perhaps I may ask one or two more questions for further edification. Do Her Majesty's Government agree that the UK's historically relatively low business taxes have helped UK businesses to be competitive in the global marketplace? Further, does the Minister share my view that tax competition between countries is important to enable countries to stimulate demand in times of poor economic growth?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will have to look for more important things to worry about than the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Barnett. However, the answer to her first question is yes, while the answer to her second question is as I have already said: we are in favour of dealing effectively with unfair tax competition.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Members of the Opposition Front Bench seem to misunderstand the job of Chief Secretary to the Treasury? I was not suggesting for a moment that the Treasury should reduce the amount of tax revenue. What I sought to suggest, and what I thought would be perfectly sensible, would be to try to move towards some harmonisation of indirect tax rates with a view to being helpful to trade. I should have thought that even the Opposition would understand that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett has gone some way to assuaging the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, or at least I hope that he has. However, my response to his subsequent question has to be the same: yes of course there are advantages in harmonisation for the effective operation of the internal market. If that is what my noble friend means, then I agree with him.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is suggesting that VAT should be put on to children's clothes and on newspapers?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not hear him say that.

Press Complaints Commission

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will empower the Press Complaints Commission to impose heavy fines on newspapers which publish inaccurate stories and refuse to publish prompt and prominent corrections.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Press Complaints Commission is an independent body. The Government have no control over it and, therefore, no powers to enable it to impose fines.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, is it not clear that the Press Complaints Commission as it is now constituted is a feeble body which fails to control the excesses of the press? One example, which unfortunately could be multiplied many times, was the recent lies concerning asylum seekers and the killing of swans and eating of donkeys. What alternative have the Government to offer that would deal effectively with newspapers which do not give a tinker's cuss about truth or accuracy in pursuing their own agenda, often causing considerable harm to people who are not in a position to defend themselves?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a citizen, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has every right to make complaints about the behaviour and accuracy of the press; he has the opportunity to do so through the Press Complaints Commission. As a former Minister, I know that he feels as I do now that the exposition, shall we say, of government policy in the newspapers is not always as complete, accurate and impartial as we might wish it to be. However, that is a very long way from saying that we should abandon the democratic principle of a free press in this country.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the ability to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is restricted to those who are damaged by the reports? If an individual writes to the Press Complaints Commission, it can respond by saying, "No one has complained about that. As a member of the general public you have no locus. However, we may take a look at it". The commission then does nothing about it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are other means of registering a complaint other than through the Press Complaints Commission. If someone has a genuine grievance against the press, they are able to write to the newspaper and to expect a response. In recent years, some of the more responsible newspapers have set up as a principle what is called the "readers' editor". Through that system even trivial errors are corrected, although some, such as readers of the Guardian, might think that that is done to excess. Those are matters for the newspapers and not ones on which the Government ought to have a view.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the difficulty arising from the noble Lord's suggestion is that, even if that were instituted—and I have some doubts about it—it would be a remedy only for the rich and the powerful and would do nothing for ordinary people?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was interested to read the recent report of the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport. It stated that space ought to be made available for a regime that was "gently punitive"—that is, adjusting registration fees for the Press Complaints Commission—and "modestly compensatory". The problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has just pointed out, that something which is "modestly compensatory" and causes no pain to a national newspaper could be desperately damaging financially to a small, local newspaper.

Lord McNally: My Lords, can I ask the Minister to comment on an area of the press where Ministers do have a direct responsibility? If the Daily Telegraph comes into play, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will ensure that any would-be purchaser goes through the most rigorous examination before ownership is allowed, to guarantee both probity and editorial independence?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that hypothetical situation, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will exercise her powers with due diligence.

Lord Elton: My Lords, surely my noble friend Lord Wakeham has put his finger on what is wrong with the system. Any system which provides a remedy only for the rich and the powerful is absolutely useless to the general public and, indeed, for unnamed groups of people such as immigrants who do not have a voice. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a body with a voluntary structure, not under government control, and which has rather more teeth? It would be able to shame those in error perhaps by compelling them to print their apologies in large type on the front page every time.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the way in which any error is to be corrected is of course a matter for the Press Complaints Commission. I understand that, from time to time, it does insist on a particular size and location of display of an apology or correction.

House of Lords: Composition

Lord Selsdon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Members of the House, on 26th November 2003, were elected Peers and how many were appointed Peers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there were 684 Members of the House of Lords on 26th November 2003, of which 539 were sitting as Life Peers under the terms of the Life Peerages Act 1958, 27 were sitting as either serving or former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the terms of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and 26 Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England were sitting as a consequence of taking up their diocesan sees. There were also 92 hereditary Peers excepted from the provision to exclude hereditary Peers under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the opaque transparency of his response. In this season of good will, could I ask him whether he would be kind enough to recommend to his honourable and right honourable friends that the correct title for the hereditary Peers to whom he has just referred is "elected hereditary Peers", unless the word "elected" sticks in his throat?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that it would be the right way to describe those Peers. For example, as we know, the last election that happily resulted in the arrival of my noble friend Lord Grantchester was an "election" held in which there was an electorate of three and something like three times as many candidates. Of course, technically, hereditary Peers are elected, but I do not think that people beyond the confines of this Chamber would necessarily think that they have been "elected" in the more conventional sense.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect, the noble and learned Lord cannot get away with that. Does he recall that it was an election suggested by the Labour Party, which formed the Government at the time? It had the approval of Members of the House of Commons; it had the approval of Members of your Lordships' House; and it had the approval of Parliament. It is not possible to say that they were not elected. The system may be wrong, but that is the Government's fault.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl heard, the question to which I responded was whether I would recommend to my right honourable and honourable friends that henceforward they would be called "elected" Members of the House. The answer is no, I will not recommend that to my right honourable and honourable friends because I do not believe that people beyond this Chamber would regard that as the kind of election they perhaps had in mind for the House of Lords.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, having listened to the noble and learned Lord on the "Today" programme this morning, why does he not accept that the way forward to a proper democratic reform of your Lordships' House involving real elections is not for the Government to seek a non-existent consensus but to show some leadership?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before we move beyond the House of Lords reform Bill, which will be proposed this Session, we should seek to find consensus. Accompanying the announcement of a statutory appointments commission and the removal of the hereditaries, we made it clear that the door was open. We hope that we shall be able to move people through it.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is good news that the noble and learned Lord is in favour of consultation and consensus, but why is he in favour of it only after the passage of the proposed Bill rather than before?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, because it has taken so long to reach consensus, the idea that the hereditaries should remain and that any Prime Minister of the day should still be able to determine the size of the House and the size of the respective political parties is, I believe, no longer sustainable.

Lord Elton: My Lords, even at this late stage, does not the noble and learned Lord consider that there would be merit in considering the arrangements of both Houses at the same time?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that may well be right for further stages of reform but, in terms of the hereditary Peers, the statutory appointments commission and the idea of the Prime Minister being able to determine the size of the House and the size of the political parties, I do not believe that anyone suggests that that is a sensible or appropriate way to deal with the matter.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord believe that the 15 Peers who were elected by the entire House deserve the title of "elected hereditary Peer"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, I do not believe that they deserve that title. They are deserving in many respects but, as to whether they should be called "elected", one should look at how the world outside the Chamber views this issue. The question of "elected" Members of this House means "elected by a wider public".

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that this exchange demonstrates beyond any argument the enthusiasm and desire from all quarters of the House to get on with these reforms?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is not necessarily the impression one gets from this exchange. However, I am more than happy to agree with the noble Lord. We should try to move on and make progress on the two reforms to which we are referring.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, would not an examination of the voting lists from the last time we had choices of the kind of House we would have reveal that the hereditary Peers were all over the shop, just like everyone else?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the precise figures but this House voted three to one or four to one in favour of an appointed House. This may well not be the stage two that the Labour Party wishes, but it certainly appears to be the stage two that a vast majority of this House want.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord realise that his answer to my first supplementary question was highly unsatisfactory to those of us who were elected—whether we are called "elected" or not—because we understood that we were elected in order to be here for the final settlement? The noble and learned Lord's answer suggested that what is to be done next is merely to eliminate those of us who were elected in order to get on with the job without us being there to put in our piece.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as was made clear at the time the assurances were given, they were intended to be for a short period. The transitional period was intended to last—

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that was specifically said at the time the assurances were given in Hansard. The precise reason that the hereditaries were staying was for that short period. As regards the assurances given in relation to stage two and its definition, as I said earlier, the stage two that very many people on the other side of the House wanted was a fully appointed House.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord remember—if he was here—that there was no reference to a short period? I was here. There was no reference to a transitional period as a cut-off on the basis of the deal that was made. Does not the noble and learned Lord know that?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, both of those points were referred to by my noble and learned friend the then Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate on the 1999 Bill.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord refers to a "short period", is it in comparison to the life of the nation or only to the life of one Parliament?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a "short period" in relation to the particular assurances that were given is a short period not in relation to the life of the nation but a few years at most.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I hate to correct the noble and learned Lord but in the September edition—as in every edition since 1999—of the publication Who does what in The Lords reference is made to 90 Peers as "elected". I commend the noble and learned Lord to read that publication.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful. I shall certainly read it. I am not sure that it is necessarily regarded as an authoritative document.

Business of the House: Debate, 9th December

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the time limit on the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Greenfield set down for Tuesday 9th December shall be increased from two and a half hours to three hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union

Statutory Instruments

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. European Union
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union;
	That the expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:
	(i) Any proposal under the Community treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
	(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
	(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;
	(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
	(v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
	(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	B. Billingham,
	L. Bowness,
	L. Brennan,
	L. Dubs,
	L. Geddes,
	L. Grenfell (Chairman),
	L. Hannay of Chiswick,
	B. Harris of Richmond,
	B. Maddock,
	L. Marlesford,
	L. Neill of Bladen,
	B. Park of Monmouth,
	L. Radice,
	L. Renton of Mount Harry,
	L. Scott of Foscote,
	L. Shutt of Greetland,
	L. Williamson of Horton,
	L. Woolmer of Leeds;
	That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
	That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the European Union Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed. Statutory Instruments
	Moved, pursuant to Standing Order 74 and the resolution of the House of 16th December 1997, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:
	L. Brougham and Vaux,
	B. Gale,
	L. Greenway,
	L. Lea of Crondall, L. Mancroft,
	E. Russell,
	L. Skelmersdale.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Summer Recess 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, the House should rise for the Summer Recess not later than Thursday 22nd July 2004, should sit during two weeks in September 2004, and should sit again no sooner than Monday 11th October 2004.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Group on Working Practices, chaired last year by my predecessor, noted that the other place was to start sitting in September and recommended that this House should do the same. The Procedure Committee said that it supported the group's aim of a more balanced parliamentary year and recommended that the House should decide. Accordingly, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn moved a Motion similar to this one on 25th November last year. That Motion was explicitly limited to 2003. I now invite the House to agree to experiment with this new sitting pattern for a further year.
	At the end of this Session the House will have to decide which aspects of the working practices package, if any, to keep, vary or abandon, including this one. Following that decision, there should be no further need for an annual Motion.
	The other place will sit next September and I invite the House to do the same. The same arguments apply as for the previous Session. The September sitting pattern is rational in its own right. It is more balanced over the year; it is more family friendly; it is less open to criticism of excessive summer holidays; and it reduces the risk of emergency recall. I cannot imagine that we would have got through this summer without a recall if we had not been due to sit in September.
	In a bicameral Parliament the two Houses should march broadly in step. If the Motion is not agreed to it will be impossible to do anything on a bicameral basis between 22nd July and 11th October—no ping-pong; no Royal Assent; no approval of affirmative instruments; no creating or convening of a Joint Committee—unless one House or the other is recalled specifically.
	Let me be clear. If the Motion is agreed to then, as my noble friend the Chief Whip told the House on 30th October, subject to progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise on 22nd July and resume on 7th September; rise on 16th September for the party conferences and resume on 11th October. If it is disagreed to then, subject to progress of business, it is expected that the House will rise on 28th July and resume on 4th October. It is a straight swap; seven sitting days for seven sitting days. It will mean a six-week break between July and September and a three-week conference break before the House resumes in October.
	This is a House matter and I invite the House to decide. I beg to move.
	Moved to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, the House should rise for the Summer Recess not later than Thursday 22nd July 2004, should sit during two weeks in September 2004, and should sit again no sooner than Monday 11th October 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, so far as we are concerned, this is a free vote, and I hope that that is so on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has just given us further assurance that, whether the Motion is won or lost, it will make no difference to the total number of sitting days. I accept that that is determined by the time that we take to consider the business before us. I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for giving the whole House the chance to vote on the issue.
	I shall vote against the Motion, as I prefer the traditional pattern of sittings. So does my wife—that is an influential matter, at least for me. I wish to make clear that the proposal is not the same as the one that we had a year ago following the report on working practices by Lord Williams of Mostyn. He suggested, and noble Lords agreed, that in the previous Session we should rise in mid-July and sit for two weeks in early September. This Motion is different. Assuming the exigencies of business do not interfere, we would rise three-quarters of the way through July, as the noble Baroness made clear, and definitely not sit during the Conservative Party conference at the end of the recess.
	The main argument advanced previously, and again today, is that it is desirable for this House to sit at the same time as another place. I see no logic or merit in that argument. Conventionally, the Houses have not sat on the same days, and our annual pattern of business varies from that of another place. Furthermore, I understand that sitting in September tends to increase the running costs of this House. We pride ourselves—at least, sometimes—on making a relatively modest call on public funds for the expense of running this House. I do not know how much the increase will be, or whether the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can tell us how much more it would cost to accept the Motion, but I have been unable to come across a figure yet.
	I accept the argument that sometimes Parliament has been recalled during the long recess because of war or another large matter. However, although we sat earlier this year for two weeks in September while the crisis in Iraq was pressing, we had a Statement and some Questions but the Government did not find time for us to debate Iraq because of the weight, and the late introduction, of government Bills. We did not debate Iraq or any such matter in September. I question whether it would have been necessary to recall Parliament in those circumstances. Today's decision is simply whether to sit in September 2004. I would prefer not to, and I will vote against the Motion.

Lord Roper: My Lords, we welcome the opportunity for the House to consider the matter. It is a fulfilment of the pledge given by the previous Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested that it was to the advantage of a bicameral House to meet at identical times and gave three reasons why that was convenient. There is not much ping-pong in September, and we do not often set up new Joint Committees at that time of year. Although I accept the point about Royal Assent, the other two points do not seem fundamental.
	It can be argued—although it is not too strong a point either way—that if the Houses sit at slightly different times, there are more days in the year in which one House is in session to hold the Government to account and to ask Questions on issues of topical interest. There are arguments running both ways on the efficacy of Parliament.
	On this matter there is a free vote in all parts of the House. I suspect that most noble Lords will take into account their personal interests, although it is important that we consider the other parliamentary issues raised.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has just answered my point. The arguments for not sitting in September seem largely to be based on Peers' personal convenience—the ability to take one's holiday after the school holidays, perhaps to pursue outside occupations, or the convenience of the House authorities in their work programme. I can think of no political or constitutional argument against sitting in September.
	The argument for sitting when the House of Commons sits relates to the public perception of this House. We claim, quite properly, to be a serious second Chamber one of whose tasks is to hold the executive to account—we did that extremely well in the previous Session, with 89 defeats—but we then have a nine or 10-week break. That would be particularly unfortunate if an issue arose that, although not sufficiently important to require the recall of Parliament, was debated in the Commons when the Lords was not sitting. We should think very hard, particularly given the importance of the House of Lords in the coming Session—we all know the number of Bills in which we will take particular interest—about the public perception of this House if, when the Commons is sitting, we choose to take a nine or 10-week break. On balance, I cannot help feeling that it would not be of benefit to this House's reputation if we decided not to sit in September when the House of Commons did. If the House of Commons changed its mind, the argument would change.
	I wish to make two tangential points. I was the chairman of the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, which was given an extremely tight timetable. The fact that the House was sitting in September meant that we had four very important evidence sessions, which enabled us to meet our timetable. My next point is even more tangential. The House sits for two weeks in September and then breaks for three weeks for the party conferences. Perhaps the day will come when the parties will see the sense of having a four-day conference over a long weekend—Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The two Houses could continue to sit every day except Friday and Monday on three successive weekends, and the summer break would be much easier to arrange.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I regret that I cannot support the Motion moved by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I am regretful because I have great admiration and affection for her, so I hope that she will forgive me.
	I shall not detain the House for long, as we have been over this course during our debate on a similar Motion last year. As touched on by the opposition Chief Whip, we have considered it desirable to sit at the same time as another place; however, it was demonstrated amply last year that that has not traditionally been the case, and it certainly has not affected the workings of Parliament.
	The terms of last year's Motion included the proposal that,
	"the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July".
	This year we rose on 18th July, which is stretching the interpretation of "the middle" a tiny bit, at least. As the opposition Chief Whip said, no such words have appeared in today's Motion. It proposes that the House rise,
	"not later than Thursday 22nd July 2004".
	The prospect of rising in mid-July, which was held out to us when this proposal was first mooted let alone moved last year, has slipped, which was always one of my fears. There is always the temptation for a government to fill all available space with their business, despite the desirability of having less rather than more legislation. All governments do it and one can hardly blame them because, after all, it is a fact of life. However, we do not have to live with it without taking the trouble to do something about it.
	Then there was that other matter—which I introduced into our debate just over a year ago—the double disruption of the use of the House caused by interrupting the vast and essential maintenance and building work that we undertake during the Summer Recess. The floorboards come up and the rewiring starts the day after we rise for the long recess. Then, with September sittings, it all has to put back and, after 10 days or thereabouts, it all has to be taken up again and put back in time for our re-assembly in early October. Our own domestic departments in this place are not able to get a clear run, as I know from my experience from working with them as your Lordships' Chairman of Committees for several years. The contractors that we employ have to stop and then start up again, which must incur extra costs, although, as the opposition Chief Whip indicated, we have not been given any idea of what those costs amount to.
	When I raised this matter last year, I understand that one or two Members either misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said. I was to blame if there was any misunderstanding, because that meant that I had not explained myself sufficiently clearly. However, I fear that I cannot accept responsibility for any misinterpretation. If somebody misdirects himself or herself, that is a matter for him or her—if they will forgive my saying so, very delicately and gently, I hasten to add.
	I gather that one or two Members thought that I was worried about inconvenience to contractors and to our own departments. I was not. I was concerned about inconvenience to Parliament and to its Members. Indeed, I sought both to avoid and to anticipate any misunderstanding that might have arisen from what I said by including in my speech last year that I thought that our departments and any contractors that we employ would do what is required of them, which I still believe. I feel that it is right to place that on the record. I am concerned about the double disruption of Parliament and the inconvenience to its Members.
	There is one other short matter that I should like to mention. We are a largely voluntary House, although a small number of Members—such as office holders, Ministers and other leaders—rightly occupy paid positions. Because we are voluntary, there is a reluctance to refer to our own interests; on occasion, there is even a fear to do so. However, we occasionally have a right to consider our own personal interests. After all, the nation benefits quite considerably from the time, knowledge, expertise, experience and high qualifications that so many of your Lordships bring to this place and to the service of the House. We have our own lives to live. On behalf of any who feel reluctant to raise these personal interests, I point out that some Members and their families will be adversely affected by this proposal.
	I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Motion and that we will return to the previous pattern of sittings. It would be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to withdraw her Motion. However, if it is passed, I have one remaining hope—that she will not seek to move a similar Motion again.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I hope that I can be brief.
	Over a great many years, I have been extremely uncomfortable with the arrangements whereby we had a long break from July until October. I remember, years ago, having some responsibility for managing another place. I was extremely conscious of and sympathetic to the thoughts of a good many Members, especially Scottish Members and those with families, who found it extremely difficult when the other place—and therefore, very often, this place—sat through until the end of July. It disrupted the families of a great many Members.
	I am also uncomfortable about another matter, which I spoke about when we last debated this subject. I believe that July to October is too long a period for Parliament to be in recess. I know that my noble friend Lord Cope will not thank me for saying that—as he did not the last time that I said it—but it is why I spoke last time in favour of coming back for two weeks in September. Therefore, I can again accept that part of the Motion. However, I cannot accept the Government—having told us about a year ago that the House would rise in the middle of July—stealing another week. That is off-side and will not do. It is not at all what they said they would do. For that reason, I shall vote against the Motion.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I share the view of my noble friend Lord Cope on this matter. I am not in favour of a September sitting. I cannot agree with the assertions of the noble Baroness the Lord President about the merits of a September sitting. I cannot see why we should have to sit at precisely the same time as the other place, as several noble Lords have already said. There is very little, if any, ping-pong at that time of year. There is also the point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about the disruption to the works programme, which is not an inconsiderable matter. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may think otherwise, but it makes a difference. It involves a great deal of money and a great deal of difficulty for Members of this House and of the other place. Like my noble friend, Lord Cope, I shall be voting against the Motion.

Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that, in all the Sessions that we did not sit in September and work was going on, all the contracts were let on the basis that the two Chambers had to be returned for use within two days in the case of Parliament being recalled?

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I was a member of the previous Leader's working group. The group had a long debate on this matter, and there was a long debate on it in the House. Frankly, I have not heard any new arguments advanced today for shifting from the position previously adopted other than the fact that there has been a slight movement away from mid-July towards the three-quarter point. However, that argument does not really hold up. It would hold up if we were losing a week in the year, but that is not so. An additional argument is that it inconveniences and creates problems for Members. I shall be quite open and admit that Lady Brooke shares the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We should stand by the decision that the House originally made. The two parties opposite made strong arguments in favour of following the changes that were made in the House of Commons. Similarly, arguments were made in this Chamber in favour of going along with the House of Commons.
	The then Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the group, said that he recognised that some of the changes would be inconvenient and burdensome. In moving the report's adoption, he pointed out that:
	"Burdens and inconvenience ought to be accepted if we are to deliver the great prize of improving the quality of legislative scrutiny and therefore of legislative output".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. 642.]
	That is what the report was about. That still stands. We have not heard today any further compelling argument for moving from the position that we adopted 12 months ago. I support the recommendation of my noble friend the Leader of the House.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I shall follow up on only one aspect of the remarks of my successor as Chairman of Committees; namely, the works that have to be carried out. This building is 150 years old. It was never envisaged by Barry or Pugin that 7,000 people would pass through it on a heavy day. It requires vast amounts of extremely complicated work to be done on it. The only opportunity that those carrying it out have to do it is if they are given a clear run through August and September. That situation prevailed until last year and there was no interruption during those two months. As the former Chief Whip mentioned, the contracts provided that the work could always be interrupted if there was a crisis, but that would be for a couple of days. If the interruption lasts two weeks, the workers have to drop everything and the contracts are vitiated. Nobody knows what the figure is likely to be. I asked Black Rod last Thursday and he had not yet been able to obtain it. Once one signs a contract for work in August and September and then chops in for a couple of weeks in September, the contractor has the muscle to announce that the total bill will be a great deal bigger that it would otherwise have been. That is the only point that I wish to emphasise. I do so only out of my affection for this building and my desire to see it staying upright. It has nothing to do with the interests of Peers or their holidays. One should also take into account the staff in this matter. They also have been seriously disrupted by the September sitting being sprung upon them.

Lord Monson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, pointed out, there is never any ping-pong between the two Houses in September or early October. That does not start until the end of October or the beginning of November at the earliest, so the "ping-pong" argument is not valid. However, I shall put a question to the noble Baroness that arises from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Is it not the case that her proposals would mean that we shall sit for one more week between the beginning of July and the end of the Session than was the case two or three years ago? If I am right in that assumption, is the extra week designed to make up for the week's break in February, which I do not believe many people asked for, and if so, is the February break guaranteed or will it be pared down, as happened this year?

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for being kind enough to table the Motion and giving us the opportunity to vote on it in a free vote. It is an important matter.
	I shall vote against the Motion. It seems to have been an unpopular move among Members, staff, Hansard writers and contractors, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who said that contractors have to wrap everything up for two weeks, put it back again for two further weeks and wrap it all up again after that. That is an absurd waste of time.
	The argument that we have to come here "to hold the executive to account", as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, put it, is a specious one. We do not hold the Government to account at all. If they can get rid of the 600 year-old office of Lord Chancellor without hearing a bleat, we are not holding them to account very well. That is a specious argument. I hope that we will carry on as we carried on before, because people knew where they were. After all, staff as well as Peers are greatly inconvenienced by the September sitting, as are contractors.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I shall make a very brief point that has not been made so far. If we sit until the end of July and resume at the beginning of October, our recess will correspond with that of the Appellate Committee, so there will be a small saving there.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it has not been mentioned that many, if not most, noble Lords take part in public life in various ways in their own locality and across the nation when they are not in this House. Most voluntary organisations and businesses, having had a holiday in August, wake up in September. If we cannot go to the meetings of the organisations with which we are involved in September, that is a great pity, because we will bring less to this House than we otherwise would. The public's perception of this House was spoken about. They understand the difference between this House and another place. I shall vote against the Motion.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I had not planned to speak on the issue, but I feel obliged to make a contribution from another direction. If one has school-age children, as I do, one is likely to want to break earlier in the summer, preferably in mid-July rather than, as proposed, on 22nd July. Staff may well be in the same situation. If one does not have school-age children, one will probably not want to break early. I recognise that few here have young children and I realise that it is lot to ask of my fellow Peers to experience inconvenience on our behalf. However, we have to carry out much of the same work as the House of Commons. Many of us here are working Peers and we have children to consider as well. I hope that after Christmas, when our number is, as I hear, to be expanded, we will have more working Peers. I know that our age profile is different from that of the House of Commons and that is reflected in the way in which the issue is being addressed. I hope that noble Lords will consider the situation of those of us who have school-age children.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I came into the House with a fairly open mind until I heard some of the speeches. I appreciate that there will be some extra cost, but we should decide issues such as this on the basis of what is right, not on the comparatively slender basis of extra cost and inconvenience. My noble friend Lord Carter made an important point. The perception of people outside this House is not unimportant and it should not be to your Lordships. How will they perceive a break of some 11 weeks? That is a far longer break than that of any people outside your Lordships' House. We should recognise that the public will feel we do not care too much about what we should be debating throughout the year. Having heard the argument about perception, I shall vote with my noble friend.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, with the permission of the House and that of my noble friend Lady Fookes, whom I congratulate on taking over as Chairman of the Refreshment Committee, I shall make two points on behalf of that department. Noble Lords will be aware that we started a major programme of refurbishment this summer. Plans were made, owing to that work, to provide alternative refreshment facilities. In fact, they were not needed, because the contractors worked ahead of time and everything was in order when we came back in September. When we rise next July, phase 2 of the work will start, subject to financial agreement. It will involve extensive refurbishment of the kitchen areas.
	Although the contractors plan to have the work finished by September, it may not be finished by then. It is possible that, if we came back in September, we would find that refreshment facilities were very limited. It is, however, planned that things will be back to normal in October. That point ought to be borne in mind.
	In 2005, there will be no facilities at all. We will have temporary kitchens right through from July until the end of the year.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I shall seek to address the points that have been made. I repeat what I said in my introduction: this is a House matter, which is why I brought the Motion to the House today.
	Parliament will sit in September next year, regardless of whether the House of Lords chooses to sit. The other place has already announced its dates, and it will sit. That brings me to my third point, which relates to that made by my noble friend Lord Carter. Over the past few years, we have sought to improve the perception and reputation of the House. Part of the way in which we sought to do that was to bring ourselves closer into step with the other place. I recognise that it is an issue of personal convenience for many noble Lords, but, if the other place sits for a long period during which we do not, the perception of this House will be damaged.
	Several noble Lords raised the issue of cost. No figure can be given. Work contracts differ according to the time available. It is more expensive to sit in September, but, as I understand it, the difference is marginal, rather than decisive. It has been brought to my attention that, as the other place will sit in September, contractors will not, in any event, be able to do major work in the House of Lords, because of the noise. That is the advice that I have been given by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the administration of the House.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. My understanding was that we knew that sitting last September had created identifiable costs of over £200,000, as well as considerable unidentifiable costs on top of that. Is that what the noble Baroness describes as "marginal"?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have been advised that no figure can be given.

Baroness Blatch: Shameful.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says that that is shameful. For several reasons, I do not consider that that is shameful for the staff who work on the accounts of the House. As I said, the work contracts for different parts of the work in the House differ according to the time available.
	We must consider what the cost would have been, if the House had been recalled in September. Also, we must consider what parts of any major contract could not be undertaken in the House of Lords, if the House of Commons sat in September, even if this House were not sitting. There are so many imponderables that, although it was possible for the authorities to say that it would be more expensive, they were unable to put a definitive figure on it. That is neither unreasonable nor, as the noble Baroness said from a sitting position, shameful.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that no figure can be given. That is her judgment. However, am I correct in thinking that an estimate was made and was passed to the Government? If that is the case, can the noble Baroness at least tell us what it is?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have not been given a cost. If I had been, I would have given it to the House. I am giving the House the advice that I have been given by the House authorities.
	I remind your Lordships that we have undertaken to review our working practices after two years. I recognise that, with respect to September sittings, we made a decision for one year only, but I feel that we should have a complete review of working practices after two years, including the issue of September sittings.
	Is an additional week somehow being lost? Noble Lords will recall that, this year, we had only two weeks' break for the party conferences. The proposal for next year is to have a three-week break, which is why the date chosen is 22nd July, rather than one week earlier. I reiterate: we are not losing a week in the year. As I said, it is a straight swap of seven sitting days for seven sitting days.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that it is important that we consider the needs of parents and, I would also say, grandparents. However, it is a matter for the House.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she must address the problem that I and others raised. Why did the Government say last year that the House would rise in the middle of July? On the basis of the current proposal that we rise on 22nd July, that implies that, next year, we should rise on 15th July. It seems to me and, I think, to others, that the Government said one thing last year and, this year, have stolen a week by seeking to rise a week later.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, last year's decision was made on the basis of the proposals that were being made in another place. At that time, the proposal was that the other place should rise, I think, on 17th July. We rose, I think, on 18th July. This year, in trying to match the other place's dates, we have chosen 22nd July. As I said, we are not seeking to steal an additional week. Next year, there will be three weeks for party conferences, rather than two weeks.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that we have frequently risen one week later than the Commons and come back one week earlier? The noble Baroness has rested her case predominantly on the need for us to sit at the same time as the Commons, but I have no recollection—I have been here since 1987—of that arrangement causing any difficulty between the two Houses.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remember debates in this House in which noble Lords asked, time and time again, for our Recesses to match the Recesses of the other place, with particular reference to dates earlier in the year and a February break.
	Noble Lords will recall that my noble friend the Chief Whip has been keen to enable Members of this House to have a more balanced parliamentary year, by seeking to parallel the Recesses of the other place.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we did not have a break in February this year, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may recall, my noble friend the Chief Whip announced a break, progress of business permitting, in February next year.

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 115.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Aviation (EUC Report)

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union on "Open Skies" or Open Markets? The Effect of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgments on Aviation Relations Between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) (17th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 92).

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, in introducing this debate I remind your Lordships that the committee also published a supplementary report in July 2002, which I shall refer to during the course of my remarks.
	I would like, first, to thank my fellow members of sub-committee B for their support, hard work and contributions during this inquiry. I know they will join me in expressing our deep appreciation and thanks to our specialist adviser, Professor Rigas Doganis, and congratulating him on his recent appointment as a non-executive director of South African Airways. I am sure, too, that members of the committee will join me in conveying our warmest thanks to our Clerk, Patrick Wogan, who continues to be a tower of strength and an inexhaustible source of wisdom and sage advice.
	On behalf of the committee, I also want to record our thanks to all those who have given us written evidence and those who additionally have appeared before us. We were most grateful to the many people who shared their views with us during our visit to Washington, and special thanks are due to staff of the British Embassy there for their usual unfailing efficiency in arranging the visit and for their advice and hospitality.
	Finally, but not least, I thank the Government for their positive response at the end of July to our report and for their congratulations to the committee on the thoroughness of its investigation.
	Before I turn to the committee's reports, I will summarise the background to and the events that occasioned them. International air services have been heavily over-regulated, with restrictions on market forces and the pressures of competition, since the Chicago Convention of 1944. This reaffirmed nation state sovereignty over air space and led, in turn, to a vast network of intergovernmental bilateral air service agreements—ASAs—between countries. European Union member states today operate some 1,500 ASAs, with the UK alone operating 149. The main elements of air service agreements are set out on page 9 of our report of April 2003.
	International airlines were often seen as national flag carriers, and for much of the time since 1944 they have been protected by these air service agreements, state subsidies and other protectionist measures. For example, in the United States, foreign ownership of voting stock of domestic airlines is limited to 24.9 per cent. The USA prevents, by law, the right of foreign airlines to establish new airlines in that country and also, by law, gives preference to domestically owned airlines for government-related passenger and cargo travel, whether within or outside the United States—the so-called "Fly America" and "Civil Reserve Air Fleet" policies.
	Air service agreements between the United States and European Union member states have so far been based on ASAs between the USA and individual member states. In all those air service agreements there has been a nationality clause that requires carriers obtaining their operating licences within a community state to be majority-owned and substantially controlled by that state or its nationals.
	Eleven of the present 15 member states have agreed some common conditions with the United States, generally known as "Open Skies" agreements. Under these, there is no restraint on access to the market and no capacity restrictions. Airlines of either country have the right to pick up traffic in the other country and carry it to a third country, the so-called "fifth freedom". But open skies agreements do not give rights to airlines of either country to operate domestic air services in the partner countries—that is, there are no cabotage rights.
	The consequence of the latter two conditions combined is that United States airlines can land in any of the 11 "Open Skies" partner countries in Europe, pick up passengers and fly on to another of those EU countries. However, a European Union-based airline landing in the United States cannot pick up passengers and fly to another destination within the United States. The result collectively for the European Union is an unbalanced deal, skewed heavily in favour of United States airlines.
	The United Kingdom is one of the four member states which has not signed an "Open Skies" agreement. Our agreement, known as Bermuda 2, has different restrictions for Heathrow and Gatwick, while there are no restrictions on services from other UK airports to anywhere in the United States. However, the same conditions apply to cabotage with the same unbalanced outcome. A very brief summary of "Open Skies" and Bermuda 2 and of the restrictions imposed on air services between the United States and the European Union are provided on page 11 of our report.
	Heathrow is the airport of choice for a majority of transatlantic air travellers but is facing major constraints arising from terminal and runway capacity. Bermuda 2 currently limits services to and from the US and Heathrow to two designated airlines from each country. This limit and the system of allocating slots at Heathrow pose important policy issues in UK relations with the Commission in the period ahead.
	The result of all this regulation and restriction has not been stronger airlines and robust financial performance. International airlines collectively have made net losses over the past 60 years and have collectively appeared notoriously inefficient. Many famous names have disappeared. Consumer choice of airlines, airports, routes, fares and service levels has been—and, in many cases around the world, remains—severely restricted. Competition by the provision of alternative routes across the Atlantic and heavy state subsidies in the US have kept air fares lower on this sector than on most international routes. In my view, competition needs boosting and subsidies need to be reduced.
	In contrast, while international aviation has been bedevilled by regulation and restriction, huge changes have taken place in the United States and in Europe in internal markets for aviation services. The United States took the lead with deregulation in 1978. The European Union followed, slowly at first in 1987, but decisively in 1992. The result in both the United States and the European Union has been a transformation of competition, with the emergence of low-cost airlines, lower fares, increased choice for consumers and large increases in air travel. For the EU and the US, domestic and international air travel could hardly be more different.
	It is against this background that the European Court of Justice made its rulings on certain issues on 5th November 2002, the Commission responded in November that year and again on 26th February this year, and our committee established its inquiry into the future of European aviation relations with the United States and other states.
	The European Court of Justice ruled on two quite different issues brought to it by the Commission. First, it held that member states have the right to conclude bilateral air service agreements, except where they deal with certain matters such as air fares within the European Union, which are the preserve of the Commission—that is, where there is exclusive Community competence.
	Secondly, the Court held that nationality clauses in all bilateral air service agreements, including those of the United States, infringe Article 43 of the treaty on the right of establishment. In other words, they are discriminatory between airlines of member states.
	On 9th November the Commission called upon member states to revoke their aviation agreements with the United States and to give the Commission a mandate to negotiate all aspects of the agreements. This position was modified in a second communication published in February this year, when it sought to distinguish between the need to address the infringements that flowed from the European Court of Justice judgments and the pursuit of a wider mandate aimed at negotiating full ASAs with the United States. The aim of this wider mandate, which goes beyond the current extent of Community competence, would be the creation of a fully liberalised aviation area comprising the United States and the European Union, going further than existing "Open Skies" agreements. This is known as the transatlantic common aviation area or the open aviation area.
	Our committee examined these issues and concluded that greater liberalisation would bring significant economic benefits. With respect to the ECJ judgments in November, we recommended that member states give the Commission a limited mandate to negotiate with the United States to bring bilateral ASAs with the United States into conformity with Community law. We felt that any amendments to ASAs should be uniform across member states and take place at the same time.
	On a broader issue, we recommended that member states should give the Commission a wider mandate to negotiate agreements with the United States, in order to achieve full liberalisation between and within the two blocs. The evidence from witnesses was almost unanimous in support of that position. In our view, the European Union, supported by member states, will carry more weight in negotiation than would individual member states by themselves.
	The two objectives of a wider mandate must be parity and comprehensiveness: parity in outcome for member states and their airlines, compared to the United States; and comprehensive in the sense that full liberalisation must be the aim, not partial liberalisation, on the basis of "Open Skies". A comprehensive agreement would address matters such as air traffic rights; fifth freedom and cabotage rights; the "Fly America" and civil reserve air fleet policies; crucially, restrictions on foreign ownership of capital in the United States and European Union airlines, and the right of establishment; the operation and compatibility of competition and anti-trust policies in the two blocs; state aids to airlines; and safety and security issues.
	We envisage a number of benefits stemming from that approach. There are too many airlines, internationally, propped up by regulatory and other forms of protectionism. Full liberalisation will open the door to airline consolidation and, where appropriate, to a widening of the airline alliance systems. Costs can be reduced by rationalisation and by open and unfettered competition. International air passengers can be offered many of the benefits that domestic and short-haul passengers now experience following deregulation in the United States and the European Union.
	We therefore further recommended that it would not be in the European Union's interest, or in this country's national interest, to negotiate anything short of a fully liberalised aviation market between the two blocs. There are many forces of resistance to full liberalisation in the United States, and the presidential election year ahead may bring caution rather than action for radical change.
	Following our report, the Transport Council agreed in June to give the Commission two mandates: to negotiate an air service agreement with the United States on behalf of the community, covering both the limited and wider mandates to which I referred; and, secondly, to negotiate on specific community issues with other third countries. We invited the Minister to give oral evidence to the committee, because the text of the two mandates was not available to the committee on grounds of confidentiality. Answers given by officials in the course of the oral evidence, and in supplementary evidence to us contained in Appendix 3 of our supplementary report, confirmed that the mandate to negotiate an open aviation agreement covers the matters that we wished to see in that agreement and that the Government's objectives were met.
	We concluded that the Council's mandates to the Commission appear to be acceptable to UK interests, provided that safeguards are introduced into the negotiations for an open aviation area to prevent phased negotiations from breaking down and leaving this country in a worse position than it enjoys under existing bilateral arrangements. In evidence, the Department of Transport told us that its,
	"expectation is that current arrangements under Bermuda . . . are expected to remain in place until an agreement is sorted out by the Commission".
	Nevertheless, the committee remains concerned that phased negotiations might conclude with the final goal unrealised. Given the time that it will take to negotiate a fully liberalised open aviation agreement with the United States, the danger to UK interests would continue throughout the period. When pressed on the point, an official from the department said:
	"What I have been urging on European colleagues is not to rush into phases, and the dangers of that, because in some ways it is very difficult to get a balanced agreement".
	We therefore recommend that the Government consider carefully before moving to a form of "Open Skies" regime, or any other interim measure, as part of a phased negotiation with the United States.
	Since the committee reported, time and events have moved on, so I shall raise a number of points with my noble friend the Minister. It is reported in the press that a proposed revision to the bilateral air service agreement with Hong Kong is to open up the London—New York route to Cathay. Can the Minister say whether that proposal requires the agreement of the United States under Bermuda 2 and, if not, why not? Is Cathay regarded as a foreign-owned airline for purposes of the nationality clause or the intended wider EU ownership clause? Can Virgin share air traffic rights with Cathay under Bermuda 2? Will the Minister confirm that approval is required by the Commission, and can he update noble Lords on the state of any discussions in that regard? Which other countries have been approached by the UK to update an air service agreement? How is the Commission monitoring bilateral negotiations by individual member states on third parties?
	Our report drew attention to the significance of slots, especially at Heathrow, and to the consequences of any attempt to open up Heathrow air traffic rights to more airlines from Europe and the United States. The Commission intends to tackle the issue of trading in slots. When does my noble friend expect that proposal to come forward? Can the Minister inform the House what happened to the suggestion in relation to the swaps of junk slots at the Transport Council last week?
	Turning to the matter of EU negotiations, can the Minister confirm that the second round of negotiations takes place this week? What is the main purpose of that second round of negotiations? What preliminary assessment have the Government made of likely progress towards a fully liberalised agreement?
	Finally, can the Minister say how a liberalised access to Heathrow for other US and EU airlines, whether under a phased arrangement or with full liberalisation, can be made a reality without damaging existing air traffic rights, given the major constraints upon terminal and runway capacities at Heathrow?
	Those are important matters for our aviation industry and for air passengers, whether at leisure or on business. I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union on "Open Skies" or Open Markets? The Effect of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgments on Aviation Relations Between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) (17th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 92).—(Lord Woolmer of Leeds.)

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I should like to declare several interests. I am the president of BALPA—the British Air Line Pilots Association—and I was the Minister for Aviation, inter alia, from 1974 to 1979, which is rather a long time ago. I was also commissioner for transport in the European Commission from 1985 to 1989.
	I congratulate my noble friend and the members of the committee on their consideration of a highly complicated issue, on which there are serious differences of approach, especially between the European Union and the United States of America. Unfortunately, that has long been the case.
	The essential question that confronts us today is how best to resolve that contentious matter in relation to the travelling public in particular? I am glad that the Select Committee has concluded that aviation should not be excluded from the Commission's competence. That was the view that I took in the mid-1980s, when I negotiated the matter on behalf of the European Union. Fifteen years have passed since then.
	The judgment of the European Court of Justice on aviation relations between the European Union and the United States is highly complex, too, but it is also enormously significant. There is complete clarity about the basic issue; namely, the need to bring air service agreements into conformity with Community law. The Select Committee is right to emphasise the question of how that can best be achieved. The European Court of Justice has condemned certain aspects of the current air service agreements. However, it has also restated—I think, appropriately—that member states have the right to conclude bilateral agreements, as we have done.
	The Select Committee asserts that air service agreements should be negotiated differently from in the past, although it concludes, again, in my view, rightly, that complete competence regarding air service agreements will eventually—I do not believe that this will take too long—be that of the Commission in its entirety. I share the view of the Select Committee that it is essential to show respect for the judgments of the European Court of Justice in this as in other areas.
	As the Select Committee concluded, it is right that initially the Commission should take over the task of negotiating air service agreements with the United States. The Select Committee is right to stress that the issues underlined in paragraph 103 will take time to resolve. I shall not bore the House with a recital of what paragraph 103 is about as noble Lords can refer to it. The Select Committee opined that the Government should ensure that in its new mandate the Commission should work inter alia for an ability to acquire a share of United States airlines to wet lease to American clients for all-cargo operations to obtain internal United States cabotage rights, although, as the chairman asserted, that is bound to take time.
	The Select Committee also expressed the opinion that subsidies which are paid to certain airlines, including those in the United States, are wrong, and that, indeed, they contribute ultimately to the decline of such airlines. I unreservedly support that conclusion. In that regard all sorts of excuses are deployed. The fact is that such subsidies, whether hidden or overt, are unacceptable, and clearly in any negotiations we should say so.
	I turn to a certain demand of the Select Committee from which I depart, although the demand in question relates to a negotiating stance rather than anything else. I have formed the view that we should be consistent throughout, and that that is not altogether mirrored in the Select Committee's recommendations. I consider, for example, that the Select Committee's views—as reflected in paragraph 108—are likely to earn a riposte from the United States that its motives are questionable. Far better, in my submission, to assert from the outset the ultimate objectives that we seek to obtain. I remain sceptical about the advice that is tendered in paragraph 108. I appreciate that that signals a departure from the negotiating stance generally deployed, but we are not exactly starting from scratch! We know, and they know, what is being considered. It is not a matter of conjecture at all. We are not dealing with amateurs on either side. It is entirely feasible that they know what our ultimate objectives are. Therefore, I contend that they should be stated.
	I wish to mention several specific points that are germane to the backcloth of negotiation. Today I received a briefing note from British Airways. It supports the mandate that has been given to the European Commission to negotiate with the United States. As I say, I applaud that view. British Airways contends that,
	"a fully liberalised agreement or Transatlantic Common Aviation Area between the EU and the US",
	is desirable. That was stated by my noble friend Lord Woolmer today. British Airways also contends that:
	"The removal of restrictions including the limits on ownership and control, cabotage, routing rights, cargo and wet leasing",
	is desirable, as I said. That is absolutely essential, and we should say so right from the beginning. British Airways states that we should accelerate,
	"the liberalisation of the global aviation industry".
	There should be no room whatever for doubt in that regard.
	Of course, what we say now will be highly relevant to our negotiations with other bilateral partners such as Japan, India, Russia and so on. Consistency is the order of the day. I applaud the view that BA has advanced; namely, that we should argue for a full liberalisation package. We should avoid the temptation of securing what it has described as an "early win". As I have said over and over again, it is vitally important that we should be entirely consistent in our arguments.
	When we talk about liberalisation it is vitally important that the EU, or at least the 10 new member states, should understand that there must be a similarity of standards for crew members. Part and parcel of liberalisation is that we should start to ensure that the EU has a consistent position. Varying standards are not acceptable vis-a-vis our negotiating position. There must be no serious distortion of such standards.
	The issue of security applies to the point that I have just made. It is unhelpful, to say the least, for varying standards—sometimes abysmal standards—to apply. Once again, as with the issue of crewing, there is a place for regulation. The EU should have a common policy on security. Good security is vital, especially in this day and age. There is of course a great deal to be regretted about that. Nevertheless, it is essential that we should observe high-security standards so far as European Union airlines are concerned.
	My criticism of the Select Committee's report does not in any way diminish its primary concerns. I end as I began, by congratulating my noble friend and the other members of the Select Committee, who performed such excellent work.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before I make a small contribution, I must declare an interest as a director of British Airways. However, my reading of the report was not really done with my British Airways hat on. I welcome the report wholeheartedly. It is a great piece of work, but I am not surprised, as it is in the good tradition of that sub-committee of the European Union Committee. I have had first-hand experience of its good work, not under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, but under that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Geddes. It has always worked at the issues in a most detailed way and produced very good reports.
	This report is really first class. For example, it includes an excellent glossary of terms. The aviation sector seems to have more jargon on an industry-specific basis than any other with which I have been associated. I love the graphic illustration about the freedoms of the air, although it made me spend about 15 minutes trying to work out who owned the aeroplanes and what they were. For noble Lords who want to know all about fifth freedoms and all the other freedoms, page 44 is excellent. I would go so far as to say that the report is probably essential reading for those beyond this House interested in the economics and operations of the aviation sector.
	In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, gave us a great history of the network of ASAs—air service agreements—the ownership restrictions in the US, and the "Fly America" policy. I was going to deal with all those, but I shall no longer do so, because he did much better by them than I would have done. He also made the very interesting point that 11 of the 15 current EU members subscribe to "Open Skies", which of course does not include the UK. All that is under Bermuda 2, but that is very well described in the report.
	The four major recommendations of the report are dealt with in detail. The questioning of the excellent witnesses by the members of the committee is well worth reading. As an interested insider, to me most of the major recommendations seem absolutely right. Having said that, giving the European Commission a "limited mandate" in recommendation (a) implies that there will be strict scrutiny—even monitoring—that the negotiation is done within the agreed limits, and that no one has a rush of blood to the head and sells UK aviation down the river. That is not really an apposite metaphor for dealing with aviation, but I am sure that my gist is accepted by the House.
	Recommendation (b), the wider mandate to renegotiate the air service agreements, states,
	"that Member States should give the Commission a wider mandate to renegotiate ASAs with the United States of America initially, and subsequently with major aviation powers such as Russia and Japan in order to achieve full liberalisation in aviation".
	That is not only a first-class recommendation, but a very exciting one. If it is done correctly and properly, it means that we will have a global market in aviation. Total liberalisation is really what is needed. It is interesting that the evidence received by the committee was almost unanimous in that regard.
	Full liberalisation would have a positive impact on the future of aviation because it is good for consumers, good for strong and efficiently run airlines, and extremely good for competition. The strong UK airlines are not afraid of competition; if they were, they would have given up years ago. I am sure that they all agree that in the ideal world there would be an "open aviation area". That is the term that we should go for, as "Open Skies" has become muddled because of the restrictions that pervade in other countries dealing with so-called "Open Skies" arrangements.
	That open aviation area would preferably be throughout the world. Globalisation is so patchy—Coca-Cola can be, and is, traded throughout the world; McDonalds and Scotch whisky are found throughout the world; the products of Procter & Gamble and Unilever are traded by the dozen throughout the world. It is absolutely stupid that airlines cannot trade throughout the world.
	When we talk of an "Open Skies" policy, however, it has to be "Open Skies" for all. There can be no sheltering behind quotas, tariffs or non-tariff barriers to trade. We are all slightly sceptical about the concept of open markets. We do not need to have very long memories to recall the US steel situation—it goes back only a week—or state aid to continental European airlines, not to mention the US Government's subsidies to their airlines, totalling over 9 billion dollars since September 2001.
	The open aviation area would be quite different from the "Open Skies" model that exists in the US. In that, although the US airlines are seen to be deregulated—and they are, within their own territory—the conditions of free markets do not apply in so far as there are strong ownership and control measures in force. That is not what we think of as being a single market. Free markets are not the norm. We have to be sure that the OAA is a free market, with true liberalisation.
	It is essential that we are not conned into partial liberalisation, which is little more than a cosmetic. The Commission must ensure that it avoids further opening of Europe to US airlines while restrictions on the operation of UK and other European airlines in the United States remain. If the United States gets what it wants in terms of greater access to the European markets too early, there will be no incentive to create a true single market. If the United States is able to get "Open Skies" throughout the European Union, it could well retreat behind the barricades and ensure that the stringent ownership regulations remain, keeping the ownership of US airlines in the hands of US citizens.
	To sum up, UK airlines are very much in favour of competition. With full competition, the strongest will survive, and everyone should agree that the UK airlines have shown just how they can survive, unsubsidised, in the most testing time for world aviation since the industry began. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, briefly referred to the fact that all the profits of all the airlines in the world since the beginning of air travel—in effect since 1945, although I know that it began before then—were wiped out in the past three years. That is ridiculous. If airlines have not got the guts to survive during that, they will not have the ability to survive beyond.
	Inevitably consolidation will occur and some national flag-carrying airlines will not survive. There is a chance, however, that even they might grow up and face the cold winds of competition. British Airways, with only about 40 per cent of traffic at its hub—Heathrow—compared to Lufthansa with nearly 65 per cent and Delta at about 75 per cent at their respective hubs of Frankfurt and Atlanta, is certainly used to competition. More than that, it has battled ferociously to remain competitive in the past three years when it has been subjected to market catastrophe following market catastrophe.
	Those who are anti-consolidation should remember that deregulation within the US resulted in increased services, lower fares, robust competition and innovative enterprise. The development of no-frills airlines and low-cost airlines was a direct result of deregulation. We have deregulation within Europe—and the development of the low-cost and the no-frills airlines has followed the same pattern as the United States with marvellous results and benefits for customers. We now need deregulation between the two blocs. Then, as the report says, we should move on to Russia and Japan. Deregulation has enabled the strong UK airlines—Virgin, BMI and BA—to compete on a truly global basis. We cannot wait.

Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I had the honour of being a member of Sub-Committee B, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. I pay tribute to his efforts to bring clarity to what at first felt like an appallingly complicated situation. Once we had heard enough witnesses and our brains had settled down it became possible to reduce the appalling complications—no doubt by way of gross over-simplification—to one or two clear facts. The evidence revealed that the EU countries, and doubtless others all over the world, enjoy a totally one-sided situation in relation to the US. The words "Open Skies" to describe the agreements is extremely clever. They leave the general reader or auditor with the impression that the agreements open the skies to air traffic. They open the skies above Europe to United States' traffic, but not the skies above the United States to European traffic.
	That happens when a large trading power negotiates with smaller trading powers. We could see a golden opportunity for the European Union to exercise its weight and negotiate a better balanced deal. It is the opportunity for the European Union to confound any Eurosceptic present and do a deal which would truly open the skies over the USA ultimately to the mutual benefit of two large trading powers—even if the USA does not quite see it that way at the moment. Against that background, the problem that became increasingly evident was over how the EU could enter the negotiations and bring them to a successful conclusion so that we would have a fully liberalised aviation market.
	The first question—that of entering negotiations at all—has been answered. The Transport Council agreed in Lisbon in June that the EU should have a mandate to negotiate with the USA to achieve an open aviation area. However, the remaining and far more difficult problem is how to persuade the US Government and the aviation interests that stand behind them to abandon those bilateral agreements, which they know to be highly advantageous to them, in favour of a wider agreement which they do not know to be highly advantageous—although we believe that it would be in the end.
	The European Court judged that the nationality clause—which in a bilateral agreement provides that only the airlines of the country with which the US is doing the deal may have any rights—now becomes illegal and that the clause must provide that all community airlines have the same rights. The EU made a spirited bid to force the pace, and at first called for all parties to renounce rather than to repair the bilateral agreement. Under pressure the EU resiled from that position as it became clear that that would not be practical. However, the problem remains: even if one has a mandate to negotiate, it takes two to tango. How can the USA be persuaded to go to the table to negotiate a full, open aviation area when it has perfectly good bilateral agreements which, with some modification, can be brought into line with the judgment of the European Court? I believe the answer was provided almost unanimously by the witnesses to the inquiry. All were united, wherever they came from, whichever nationality they were, on the vital importance of Heathrow to US and European airlines alike.
	A large part of US and European traffic routes through Heathrow and any carrier that does not do so would like to. If there is a bargaining chip that will bring the United States quickly to the table—against a background of great difficulty in that country, where airlines are not doing well and unions utterly oppose anything that might involve US jobs going to Europe—it is the possibility of gaining slots at Heathrow. Everyone wanted more of them.
	That led me to think about that great national asset, Heathrow Airport, and the contribution it could make to the UK aviation industry against the background of the current consideration of airport policy. That was a timely thought, as I understand that a White Paper is due soon. Rumour—or, as the current parlance has it, background briefing—leads me to believe that planning consent will not in the foreseeable future be given for a second runway at Heathrow and traffic will be directed instead to a second runway at Stansted.
	That is not the same thing, as I need hardly remind your Lordships. Airlines want to interline at Heathrow, to be able to put their passengers down and have them taken away either by themselves or someone else. And passengers, almost without exception, want to fly into Heathrow and will take some considerable persuading that Stansted is also a London airport.
	I speak against a background of no interest in the sense that I live in Cambridge and it is mildly in the interests of those who live in Cambridge that Stansted Airport becomes larger—except for the fact that access by the M11 is poor. If anything, my interests would lie in enlarging Stansted, but I believe that that would be wrong for the country. In the context of these negotiations, nothing could be more helpful to the future of the whole of our aviation industry than to have an enlarged Heathrow. More runway capacity there would persuade the country with which we do the most trade—the United States of America—to the table. It would also be helpful in dealing with other countries.
	For that reason, I found myself straying from the proper considerations of the committee and on to that point. When he responds, I ask my noble friend the Minister to offer any comment he can on the future of Heathrow Airport.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is more than 10 years since we previously debated these difficult issues in the House. On the last occasion, the main problem was whether we should voluntarily cede the right to negotiate on civil aviation to the European Commission. My opinion at that time, which was shared by a number of noble Lords and perhaps by the Government, was that we should not do so yet.
	The tables have now been turned by the Commission's decision to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice and by the Court's decision, which basically gives the Commission what it wants. Further resistance on our part would be pointless—indeed, counterproductive—but we are left with a number of complicated issues which are the subject of the committee's excellent report. I do not propose to enter into the essential details, on which I do not dissent from the committee in the main, but I would like instead to concentrate on some of the larger transportation issues which should be kept firmly in mind. The principle theme for me is the nature and objective of our international air transport policies.
	We should not forget that we have a significant natural transport environment because of our geographical position. For several centuries, the British Isles were a focal point in international trade as the junction between long-distance merchant shipping and the regional transport network in Europe. Thus, British-registered and often British-owned vessels transported cargoes across the oceans of the world and broke bulk in the Port of London, whence the cargo would be distributed to the continental ports adjacent to the main markets. After 1945, we lost that valuable business for a variety of reasons, partly because of the loss of much of our merchant fleet during the war and also, regrettably, because of our failure to modernise and mechanise our traditional port facilities.
	However, at about the same time, international civil aviation took off in a spectacular way, particularly with regard to transatlantic flights. Because of the rather limited range of aircraft at the time, it made a great deal of sense for the new airport at Heathrow to be the European hub, the decision to build Heathrow having been taken as the war ended.
	A long period of successful operation began and still continues. Consequently, it was necessary to build a network of connecting flights from Heathrow to other European destinations in particular. That was taken up by, then, BEA and also by US airlines, the latter developing the habit of stationing subsidiary fleets of aeroplanes in London—all American owned, registered and crewed—to feed the stream of traffic.
	It reached the point where the US airlines were, in effect, colonising Heathrow at the expense of our national airlines—a sort of de facto fifth freedom. We sought to correct that situation by negotiations but, then, as now, the US Administration were under heavy political pressure and were unable to modify their position. That led us to give notice of the termination of our bilateral agreement with the United States—Bermuda 1. At that point, I was the Commercial Minister at the Washington Embassy and, for much of the time, civil aviation was topic number one on my worry list. Like Professor Denza, I took part in the final all-night negotiations at Shell Mex House which led to Bermuda 2. Never was dawn more welcome.
	I am sure that the Select Committee is right to support the Government's line that we should encourage the Commission to negotiate a successor agreement with the United States on behalf of member states. We really have no alternative. We should, of course, avoid any unnecessary animosity or recrimination, which would be quite pointless—indeed, counter-productive. But I do not believe that it would be inappropriate to point out, in a friendly but measured way, that the Commission will be responsible for a national British asset which we have built up over the years with the expenditure of much effort, treasure, skill and aviation expertise. We shall be looking to the Commission to manage that asset in the interests of the wider Community member states and ourselves. That is particularly the case in relation to our own asset—the largest whose control the Commission has acquired in this field.
	We need not perhaps say so but the suspicion lingers in the mind that some members of the Commission may have been more interested in acquiring control of the asset than in its careful management. Indeed, looking after the relationship between our Government and the Commission requires careful handling in our aviation affairs in UKREP. No doubt, appropriate dispositions will be made by the Government.
	The other related difficulty is quite different; namely, the growing discussion about the role of civil aviation which seems to be taking place in our country. The issue of noise has always been sensitive, as occasional interventions in this House have often illustrated. But a new dimension seems to be emerging—something which, at times, approaches hostility to the further growth of the activity of aviation as such.
	That was illustrated in a speech on the Address made in this House last week by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Noble Lords may like to know that last night I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that I would be referring to the remarks that he made on that occasion. He told me that he was grateful for the traditional courtesy but that he did not expect to be here himself. However, it appears that the Green Party would like to see civil aviation taxed more heavily with a view to its restraint and possibly diminution. It should be understood that, as I am sure many noble Lords are aware, the taxation of aviation fuel is prohibited under the Warsaw and Chicago Conventions. If an aviation fuel tax were to be imposed, it would require alteration of those treaties and their renegotiation would indeed be difficult. It would be a Pandora's box or perhaps a can of worms, whichever metaphor your Lordships prefer. If imposed as a national measure, it would, in any case, be ineffective for short-haul flights as British-based aircraft would simply refuel elsewhere in Europe.
	Also, the ever-ingenious Treasury has found a way round that difficulty by imposing a levy or tax on the sale of passenger tickets. Noble Lords may remember the cries of dismay which greeted that tax. Evidently, a further increase would not be very popular. Therefore, I am concerned by the appeal which the Green Party is making to public opinion. It seems not to understand the substantial advantages to be gained from having a prosperous and well run aviation sector.
	It also reminds me of a remark made by Freddie Laker at a lunch held in his honour at the International Civil Aviation Club in Washington DC in the late 1970s. Laker's commercial skills were much admired, and feared, in the United Sates. His particular target on that occasion was Trans World Airlines—TWA. I cannot remember why he was having an argument with TWA. However, TWA had already been obliged to scale down its expectations and operations for financial reasons and, in due course, that led to the closure of the airline. Laker referred jokingly to TWA as "Teeny Weeny Airlines", which provoked a laugh. He next modified his description of TWA as "Try Walking Across". That is perhaps the answer to the Green Party.
	We, the public, living in these islands, cannot do without a successful commercial aviation sector. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind, both in relation to the role of the EC and, of course, also in the context of airport policy—a subject which we shall no doubt have to debate in the not-too-distant future. On this subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, made some very pertinent remarks.

Lord Fearn: My Lords, it is now more than a year since the European Court of Justice ruled that the UK and seven other EU members had broken European Community law by including nationality in the bilateral agreements with the US. The judgment stated that that was a case of discrimination. Excluding air carriers of other member states from the benefit of national treatment in the host member states is forbidden by the Community rules on the right of establishment.
	Following that ruling, a package of measures has been passed, including a mandate for the European Commission to begin negotiations with the United States on a new "transatlantic common aviation area". That would grant to EU carriers access to all EU-US routes, no matter what their nationality. Those members would also provide opportunities for UK carriers in other Community markets and increase competition generally, allowing such additional opportunities in the UK-US aviation market. However, the UK-US market is already one of the largest and most competitive in the world, and the benefits may be more visible elsewhere in Europe.
	Consumers have benefited—there is no doubt about that—since the creation of single markets within the US and the EU, leading to substantial consumer benefits in the shape of increased services, lower fares, good competition and new enterprises. The same can be expected in an EU-US single market, leading to a growing market with overall benefits. One of the main benefits will be the removal of restrictions, including the limits on ownership and control, routing rights, cargo and wet leasing, thus accelerating the liberalisation of the global aviation industry and maximising competition.
	I want to emphasise and endorse a point made already—one reason that I rose to speak in this debate. It is vital that the European Union negotiates a full liberalisation package with the US and avoids the temptation to secure quick-fix decisions. That would risk a partial liberalisation whereby concessions from the US, such as an increase in foreign ownership rights in US companies, could be traded for the greater prize of increased access to Heathrow for American airlines. Such a result would be imbalanced and favour the US, which would then see no impetus whatever for pursuing a full liberalisation agenda. That must be watched very closely, and I am sure that the Minister has taken it to heart because four speakers have mentioned it thus far.
	As a member of the committee, I say in closing that our chairman thanked everyone but we want to thank him for chairing the committee so well and for getting through what we decided was a rather difficult subject.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in rising to start the wind-up of the debate I speak also as a member of Sub-Committee B. It seems to me that this report is somewhat dated. It was published on 8th April 2003, now eight months ago, and much evidence was taken before that.
	At the time I thought that this issue was complicated and I still take that view. Waiting at a desolate spot on the east coast mainline today between 12.30 pm and 1.55 pm I thought about what further complications there would be if the air transport industry had to deal with track and tarmac—apart from tarmac at airports—and mused about who would be responsible for mid-Atlantic signalling.
	Although some of the report is dated, the early part concerned who should negotiate. Much time was spent on the question of who would have the competence to negotiate. That was decided on 5th June, shortly after we produced the report, when the European Council gave the negotiating rights to the Commission. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, the European Union is about the whole business of trying to negotiate an issue which includes Europe but also goes beyond it.
	We are now in the early part of December. One assumes that the Commission started its work shortly after 5th June. Can the Minister tell the House, six months on, how these negotiations are progressing? Can he give the House a "state of the nation" position on the issue? I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not have been short of advice to the negotiators.
	The reason for the need to negotiate is the nationality clause for air transport, which infringes Article 32 of the European treaty. We learnt much about the substantial freedom for air operators within the European Union, but from the European Union to the USA and elsewhere is something of a closed shop.
	All our evidence led us in the direction of greater liberalisation of air transport markets from the European Union to the United States and beyond. We heard evidence from the Brattle Group, and it is clear that that group of independent people decided that such liberalisation would benefit both the European Union and the United States. There is a perception that negotiation with the United States can be difficult because they appear to have a one-sided agreement on cabotage, which European Union air operators do not have. Also to be considered are the issues of wet leasing; ownership and control; and a subsidy regime. However, the independent Brattle Group states that this will be of benefit to the United States and the European Union.
	All six speakers so far in our reasonably short debate tonight have been broadly supportive of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, clearly stated the committee's position on the report and highlighted those issues which required highlighting. As my noble friend Lord Fearn indicated, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, did a first-class job in chairing the committee. It is interesting that two of the people who have been involved professionally—the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—are supportive of the report. The noble Baroness indicated that the report should be given to people who need to read up on the industry. That is one of the aspects to be considered with a group of assorted people such as the members of Sub-Committee B, who were all on different learning paths and had to get up to speed. It was essential that we understood the issues on which we were endeavouring to reach a conclusion. The pictogram was a useful aid in explaining matters.
	I took note of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, about Heathrow, which may be where one chooses to set off from. I take a different view. I have walked up and down steps of aeroplanes at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. On only one occasion when I was subsequently travelling to this place were any of those airports selected by choice. It has been the case that that is where the air operators choose to operate from, not that I was desperate to use those airports. More thought needs to be given to the use of airports outside London. It is not as if Heathrow is just as one steps off the train at King's Cross. There is a little further to travel, which is not necessarily easy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the environment. Sub-Committee B was set up to consider matters of competition and commerce. At the time, although I did not necessarily agree with the points attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I felt that there was not an opportunity for us to consider issues other than competition and commerce. There is no question that environmental issues must be taken into account—I do not think they were in Sub-Committee B—because air pollution and the whole business of global warming are very important.
	In summary, I am delighted that there has been so much support for the report. I hope that negotiations go well so that the industry can work in a liberalised way on what is referred to these days as a level playing field.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and his committee on the report, which is a very good piece of work. It is enormously helpful to those of us who have not necessarily followed in such detail the extraordinarily complicated aspects of these issues, and makes them seem much simpler. That was demonstrated today by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate largely supporting in principle many of its recommendations.
	The past two years have been difficult for the airline industry. In America, airlines have lost more money in the past two years than they made in the previous 25 years. In Europe, airlines have lost equal amounts of money—some perhaps more, and, indeed, some have been made bankrupt. Massive state subsidies have gone into airlines, sometimes obviously or at times rather less obviously. We have a greater development of a two-tier market—as it were—in the airline industry, comprising the main carriers and what one might call the "cut price" carriers.
	So the airline industry has gone through an enormously challenging and difficult period. It is remarkable that so many of the good ones have emerged looking so well. But it has been a difficult time and I am sure that in some areas that difficulty continues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, asked the Minister a number of detailed questions. I want to concentrate on three areas of principle that I hope the noble Lord will consider. The report concluded that,
	"it makes more sense for Member States to concede a mandate to the Commission to deal with the amendments to ASAs to take account of the ECJ judgments".
	It argued that the most persuasive argument in favour of a mandate was,
	"that changes can be brought about uniformly and at the same time".
	The main question to ask regarding that is: what about bilateral agreements? Do the Government see a continuing need to negotiate bilateral agreements or do they favour handing the negotiation to the EU? That seems to be the most crucial question facing the Government.
	There are different views of course. The Commission—I thought somewhat extraordinarily—demanded that member states denounce some existing agreements with the United States as a prelude to any negotiation. That would put the industry in a certain state of turmoil and none of us would know exactly what we were doing. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out that these agreements have been put together over many years. I think that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain would agree with that.
	Interestingly, the director of the Office of International Aviation at the US Department of Transportation said that such a move would be,
	"an enormous mistake at the very beginning of the process . . . It would slow progress. We hope this will not be the case, and we strongly recommend against it".
	Do the Government agree with that sentiment? Where do they stand on the matter?
	When this reaction came out the Guardian, for example, reported that Britain had,
	"flatly rejected a demand from the European Commission to scrap its bilateral air transport agreement . . . A spokeswoman from the Department of Transport said: 'To ask us to tear up long-standing deals with the United States would result in a bad deal for passengers.'"
	Do the Government stand by that? Is it bilateral, is it EU, or is it a combination? How do the Government see the issue going forward? Obviously, if the deal is bilateral it has to fall within the various EU rules. But that will be very complicated and will run the risk that other member states might rush to make bilateral deals that favour them that would not necessarily favour us. So how will the Government deal with that aspect? How do they think they will take the issue forward? What principles will guide their negotiation in the future? I think we must know.
	Secondly, the report also said that it had looked at the wider issue of a second mandate for the Commission for renegotiation with other countries. It noted those countries as, "Russia, Japan and others". It concluded in favour of arguments for a Commission mandate. Do the Government agree with that? Is this something that could happen at the same time, or does it follow on previous agreements? How do the Government consider the matter?
	Going back to the EU, a case can be made that France rather jumped the gun on us when it managed to conclude agreement with the US some months ago, while it was still able to do so before the court judgment. That indeed may have helped them to the detriment of our case. I do not know whether the Government have a view on what happened.
	There will be more consolidation, alliances, code-sharing and booking agreements, and so on, in the airline industry. That will all be part of the EU negotiations. Do the Government agree that code-sharing is a matter for the industry, subject to any various rules there might be, or do they have a role in dealing with it?
	Perhaps the noble Lord will address the point outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, about Heathrow. The report said that,
	"the ultimate benefits that would flow from a fully liberalised Trans-Atlantic Common Aviation Area could outweigh the potential disadvantages of widening access to Heathrow".
	It would be interesting to hear the Government's view on that issue.
	We are all in favour of greater liberalisation of the air transport market. We believe that our non-state funded, independent airline companies can compete. That will be good for Britain and for this country. It must be right that that could be done through a transatlantic common aviation area agreement rather than with the US/EU "Open Skies" agreement. It seems to me that that would not remove the distortions that currently favour US airlines.
	The benefits of a more liberalised market will not be realised until state subsidies of airlines are ruled out. How will the Government do that? What is their view on handing negotiations to Europe for our airlines, which are private companies and funded by the shareholders, while the EU will be negotiating on behalf of state-funded airlines? Is it possible to reach a final point in negotiations when such state funding exists?
	We recognise the contribution that aviation makes to the economy and employment of this country. However, we also want to see a more level playing field between the different modes of transport, such as rail and road, particularly within Europe, and greater scope for regional airports with access to routes without the need to pass through Heathrow—to alleviate some of that problem.
	There must be a strategy to balance the interests of the environment and the growth of aviation. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the environmental aspects were not really covered in the committee's remit. Perhaps the committee might look at that in the future. This is an important issue. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Woolmer and his committee on the thoroughness, wisdom and good sense of the two reports they have produced. I do not say that because they did not take enormous, exceptional or serious issue with the Government's position; I say it because of how they managed to distil the key issues of a very complex situation and to frame their recommendations so precisely and pertinently to the advantage of all others.
	The debate and the work of the committee that prompted it are very timely. We are at a crossroads in the development of civil aviation worldwide. The events in Europe of the past 12 months, including the opening of negotiations at Community level with the United States, could indeed be a watershed. They offer us an opportunity to move away from the outdated regulatory structure, which currently hampers the development and restructuring of the global air transport sector.
	I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for putting the debate into some historical context, which I think is necessary and shall seek to reinforce. I might in passing say that his contribution on the issue with regard to taxation of aviation fuel was pertinent. It may look as though that was a footnote to the debate, but we know that there is great public interest in the issue. As the noble Lord said, the issue has been raised recently at Question Time, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, indicated his interest in this aspect.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, identified just what an extremely complex international situation we are in with regard to air transport. No easy flick of the switch or arbitrary decision by a British government on taxation or meeting of costs by airlines can be readily made without, first, potentially doing enormous damage to our industry and our airlines. Secondly, such a proposal is part of an international provision and we must approach it in the international context. That is why, as the report so readily identifies with regard to negotiations with the United States, we cannot produce flip solutions. We need to employ the kind of careful consideration that the committee has given to the issues.
	Historically, international civil aviation has been governed by a regulatory regime devised towards the end of the Second World War, which reflected the preoccupations of the time. The Chicago Convention, the basis of the ground rules for more than 50 years, tends to view civil aviation as an arm of state policy. We all recognise that that still obtains in certain respects, but that times need rapidly to change—and are doing so. Under the old system, governments negotiated traffic rights on behalf of "their" airlines. An airline may offer a service only if permitted to by the two countries involved. That has led to a complex web of bilateral agreements between sovereign states providing—often in fine detail—which airlines may fly where, how often, and under what conditions.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was right to focus on the question of bilaterals, because it is part of the general, complex position. The European Court of Justice confirmed that member states may continue to negotiate bilaterally, subject to conditions. The Commission received a mandate to negotiate with the US; it would need a mandate to negotiate with any other country. We would agree to a mandate only if there were added value through Community negotiations. That is the Government's principled position, on which I think that the noble Viscount sought to probe me.
	Practically, the Commission could not handle all aviation negotiations. We have more than 150 bilaterals and the Commission is not going to take on the vast range of those issues. There will therefore continue to be much bilateral negotiation for many years. I therefore reassure the noble Viscount that the Government are fully cognisant of the significance of bilaterals while, at the same time, meeting the main thrust of the report—and, indeed, of all who have spoken in the debate—that the Commission has a role to play in advancing negotiations with the United States. That role was strongly advocated by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. But he will recognise that his emphatic contribution as regards that role builds on a broad position taken in the report, which envisages the development of a significant role.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. For a long time, the Commission was denied any role in aviation. That position advanced in the 1980s, but not satisfactorily. Does my noble friend agree that on the essential issues, the Commission has rather more thrust than individual nations?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, under the chairmanship of my noble friend, that is the issue to which the committee's report directs its attention. As I shall seek to explain, we respect the committee's report. The Government's position is to seek ways in which the Commission can effectively advance the cause on behalf of all European countries in relation to the United States. But we have areas of distinct reservation. When I come to answer my noble friend's particular questions in a few moments, I hope to provide reassurance about just how seriously we are addressing the areas in which it is not a question of giving a blank cheque to the Commission. We have a proper reserve position that we must safeguard in our national interest.
	As the House will recognise, since the Chicago Convention has been breaking down, great changes have occurred in the aviation industry. US deregulation occurred in the 1970s, sweeping away, for US carriers at least, restrictions on routing, frequencies and pricing. The US aviation scene is now radically different. Famous names such as Pan Am have gone, but others have arisen to take their place, including a new breed of no-frills carriers, about which we now know a good deal in Europe. Few commentators would dispute that American consumers have benefited substantially from deregulation in lower fares and greater choice.
	In the mid-1980s, the European Community began to move in that direction. With 12 different countries involved, the process was inevitably slower than in the united nation state of the United States and a series of phases towards such liberalisation was necessary. But by 1992, the so-called "third package" of liberalisation had brought about a revolution in European air transport.
	Any airline that could meet the standards laid down—I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there are European safety standards that must be met for airlines to take advantage of the position—could be a Community carrier entitled to operate freely within the Community. Constraints on capacity and pricing disappeared, subject to the operation of EU competition law. Over the intervening period, common rules to ensure standards of safety to which the noble Baroness rightly drew attention—security, environmental protection and consumer protection—have been agreed Europe-wide.
	The creation of the European single market was considered by many at the time as a leap in the dark, but it has been more than justified by events. To take just one aspect, it is inconceivable that the no-frills sector could have flourished in Europe without the commercial freedoms ushered in by the third package. In the UK alone, the no-frills sector has expanded from carrying fewer than 8 million passengers a year in 1998 to 35 million four years later and a projected 47 million in the current year. That is extraordinary growth.
	We have debates and Questions in the House about the consequences of that extension of airline capacity and the pressures that it brings on our people in all sorts of ways. But let us make no bones about the impact. Where less expensive flights have been made available, our people have voted with their feet by their purchases. Although the Government's aviation policy is not to "predict and provide", it would be ludicrous if we did not make provision with regard to what is clearly a significantly expanding demand—although I hasten to add to my noble friend Lady Cohen that she will not take me too far into the issue of additional runways now.
	As I promised the House, we are now a matter of weeks—dare I say days; I will say days—from the long-awaited White Paper on airports in the south-east. It is certainly worth more than my tenuous link to the department for me to start to leak any information about the White Paper at this stage. I am sure that Members of the House have not participated in this debate in the hope that I would engage in one of my more injudicious moves. I shall resist that temptation.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister on being one of the few leak-proof Ministers in his Government?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that that is on the record and that it will stand me in good stead for at least another 24 hours.
	The measure of the success of these liberalising reforms is that the 15 countries of the EU, with 10 more about to join, a further three to be included in the European Economic Agreement plus Switzerland with its own agreement with the EU, will comprise 30 countries in a common European aviation area. Therefore the two major markets in world aviation, Europe and the United States, are now liberalised.
	The talks currently in progress between the EU and the US could result in these two markets being joined together to form a single, huge open aviation area, within which airlines from either side of the Atlantic could freely offer services to consumers. This would be a great prize.
	Why have the EU/US talks opened this year? As the report clearly identified, the European Commission has long wanted to negotiate with the US on behalf of the member states. During the 1990s, the US succeeded in signing so-called "Open Skies" bilateral deals with several EU member states. I say "so-called", because those agreements did not allow EU airlines access to traffic behind gateways in the United States. The most salient point to have come from the report, and one that has been voiced by all speakers in the debate, is that of the danger of achieving an agreement which does not reflect like with like. That is why the Government are grateful that the report points out why we do need to negotiate with considerable care. Very significant interests are at stake.
	European airlines are disadvantaged when compared with their US competitors, which could pick up or set down traffic elsewhere in Europe. The Commission argued that the US was picking off EU member states one by one so that, in the end, US carriers would be able to operate across the EU while Community carriers would be restricted to their national corridors. There was also a substantial imbalance between the small number of US carriers and the much greater number of EU carriers operating across the Atlantic, with adverse implications for the efficiency of those EU carriers.
	For several years, member states approached the Commission's request for a mandate cautiously because they had achieved a long series of bilateral positions that needed to be safeguarded. The UK moved into the field early and quickly established its position. We believed that we would be better able to secure benefits for UK consumers and commercial opportunities for UK airlines if we controlled the scope and direction of negotiations with the United States. Some other member states opposed a mandate for different reasons.
	However, in June 1996, transport Ministers authorised the Commission to hold exploratory talks with the US, limited to regulatory matters, the so-called "soft rights" mandate. The Commission held two rounds of talks with the US, but it soon became clear that the US saw no point in further discussion in the absence of authority for the Commission to discuss "hard rights", such as traffic rights, capacity and fares. That is why the Commission turned to the courts to seek a capacity for a mandate.
	The European Court of Justice rejected the Commission's most fundamental claim by ruling that member states are indeed entitled to continue negotiating bilateral air service agreements with third countries. That repeats the reassurance I gave earlier to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. But it laid down certain conditions. The Court held that there are certain issues on which member states should not negotiate because they are subject to Community law. Most significantly, it ruled that bilateral agreements are illegal if they give advantages to national carriers compared with other Community carriers established in the home country. Since traditional Chicago-type agreements nearly all have clauses which treat home-owned carriers preferentially, there are now a large number of bilateral agreements which need to be revised, I hasten to add, with care.
	The European Commission initially took an uncompromising view of the Court's ruling, arguing that the eight member states should activate provisions for denouncing their bilaterals with the US. It requested all member states to refrain from taking on new commitments with third countries. But member states did not accept the Commission's interpretation of the ruling and maintained solidarity by insisting that the question of a mandate be determined as part of a package addressing a number of other issues raised by the Court judgment, affecting all bilaterals rather than only those with the United States.
	Months of hard negotiation have resulted in the position outlined in the report. The Commission received a mandate to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the US on a transatlantic open aviation area. The Commission also received a limited, so-called "horizontal" mandate to negotiate with any third country on how to bring member states' bilaterals with that third country into compliance with Community law. Lastly, the Council agreed the outlines of a regulation establishing a framework within which member states may continue to negotiate bilaterally, subject to a reasonable degree of oversight at Community level.
	The UK played an active part in hammering out this composite deal. In our view, it illustrates the principle of subsidiarity which should be applied. The Commission may negotiate on behalf of member states where it can add most value, but member states are free to work on their own account on issues best dealt with at national state level. The Government believe that this deal provides a suitable institutional framework and balance of responsibilities for member states and the Commission to co-operate in liberalising air transport services between Europe and the rest of the world.
	The US mandate envisages an ambitious, comprehensive and fully liberalised agreement between the EU and the US, capable of being extended to include other like-minded countries. This would be a new form of aviation agreement, creating open access for licensed carriers throughout an open aviation area, under an agreed regulatory framework. As such, it would denote a radical departure from the traditional form of bilateral agreements based on a mercantilist exchange of traffic rights, which was defined earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
	The backbone of such an agreement would be a relaxation of airline ownership and control rules. EU interests should be able to own and control airlines based in the US, and vice versa. This would help the industry to restructure itself by means of acquisitions and mergers, as happens in other sectors. It would allow the free flow of capital and management expertise throughout the open aviation area.
	However, like the committee—and we are grateful that this was emphasised—the Government have been conscious of the risk that the Commission might be tempted to seek to score a quick result at the expense of genuine liberalisation, opting for a US-style "Open Skies" deal without holding out for the more fundamental changes which would equalise the relationship between the two areas in the way I outlined earlier. Such an agreement would not promote fundamental change. On the contrary, it could act as a drag on liberalisation for many years. The Commission's mandate does envisage the possibility of the staged negotiation of an open aviation area, but it requires that any agreement should include from the outset certain key features, including market access, ownership and control.
	To ensure that these benefits are achieved, member states have insisted that, if it were proposed that some elements of an agreement should be implemented before others in any staged approach, there should be secure mechanisms to ensure progression to subsequent stages. I am pleased to say that so far there have been no worrying signs in the negotiations on this score. The Commission has stuck effectively and strictly to its mandate. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, invited me to introduce a "state of the nation" address about the negotiations at this point. I can scarcely do so given the constraints of time and their complex nature. However, I shall do my best to give an outline of them, thus also responding to the request put by my noble friend Lord Woolmer.
	EU/US negotiations commenced on 1st October and the second round is taking place this week. The opening talks were essentially exploratory and various streams of technical work were identified. We have no reason to believe that the Commission is not as keen as the UK to achieve full liberalisation of the transatlantic aviation market. We shall, if necessary, use the UK's membership of the Special Committee, along with all other means at our disposal, to ensure that the Commission continues to work to this end.
	My noble friend also asked about the position of other countries. Looking ahead, it is too early to say when the Commission might receive mandates to negotiate with other countries. Our criteria for assessing any requests will remain whether there is added value in negotiating at Community level, and how effective the Commission has been with the US. It could be that like-minded countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, or countries which border the EU in wider Europe or north Africa, would be the most promising candidates.
	My noble friend Lord Woolmer addressed to me a series of quite specific questions, a number of which I hope he will feel that I have answered during the main thrust of my response. However, I shall turn briefly to his queries. He asked whether agreements were needed under Bermuda 2 as regards Hong Kong. The answer to that is no; they are allowed under the US/Hong Kong bilateral negotiations. Do we regard Cathay as foreign-owned? Yes, we do. Can Virgin share rights with Cathay? No, it cannot do so. Is Commission approval required? Yes, at the insistence of Hong Kong. It is too early to say what is the Commission's view, but that is the position that has been adopted by Hong Kong.
	My noble friend's second question concerned whether we were engaging in a great number of bilaterals. We are involved in 14 at present, nine of which are Community designation agreed. My noble friend asked how the Commission was monitoring those negotiations. As I have indicated, it has a mandate to monitor them with care. Which countries has the Commission approached to commence negotiations on its horizontal mandate? We have a limited report to make on that now. I made a brief reference to that in my earlier comments.
	As to the complex and difficult question of slots—I am conscious that I have already spoken for longer than I should—the Commission's proposal on this was rejected at the Council. The possibility of slot trading by means of joint exchange was safeguarded. So we are protecting our position in that crucial area.
	Will the Commission stick to full liberalisation as a goal? That is the most fundamental question of all and it is one to which we are committed as a broad principle. The noble Lord asked me to emphasise particularly our broad principles. How can liberalised access to Heathrow for other US and EU airlines be made a reality without damaging existing air traffic rights? There are real difficulties in regard to this issue. We have clear and important interests to safeguard. That is why secondary slot trading is so important.
	I have spoken at great length in response to this very intensive, detailed and effective report. I congratulate the committee on its work under the effective chairmanship of my noble friend.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I hope your Lordships' agree that this has been a wide-ranging and useful debate. On behalf of my committee, I thank noble Lords for their kind and generous comments about the report. We shall continue to keep a close eye on what I suspect will be long negotiations. We shall not lose sight of them. We shall keep a close eye on the operations of the Commission and the way in which it takes forward our ultimate aim of comprehensive liberalisation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fighting Infection (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fighting Infection (4th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 138).

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to present this report on the topic of fighting infection. All Select Committees deal with important and timely matters, and there can be few more topical and important than the present situation with respect to infectious disease. It is incongruous that, despite the many advances in modern medicine and pharmacy, infectious disease is still a major threat to the health and welfare of the British public.
	In 1969 the Surgeon-General of the United States, William Steward, testified before Congress that,
	"It is time to close the book on infectious diseases and to declare the war against pestilence over".
	This optimism is now widely accepted as not only mistaken but also damaging to the research effort into the control and prevention of infectious disease.
	We know that 60 per cent of all ill health is due to infectious disease. The magic bullets of antibiotics have lost their magic; exotic diseases threaten our shores in the forms of HIV, SARS, malaria, Ebola infection and west Nile fever, to mention only a few. The opening paragraph of the Department of Health publication Getting ahead of the curve acknowledges that the post-war optimism that the conquest of infectious diseases was near has proved dramatically unfounded. The document lays out the Government's infectious disease strategy for England. The Science and Technology Committee has put flesh on the outline plans in that document. The establishment of the Health Protection Agency as a co-ordinating body bringing together many facets of healthcare promises to be a very important development. I shall return to that later.
	At the outset I wish to thank most warmly the noble Lords on the sub-committee, which included five medically qualified persons, one member who had nursing qualifications, one who was a veterinarian and two others who were scientists, as well as others. Collectively they proved a powerful team of inquiry. Our scientific advisers were Professor Julius Weinberg of City University and Professor George Griffin of St George's Hospital Medical School, both of whom provided valuable input to the committee's deliberations. I pay special acknowledgement to our Clerk, Miss Rebecca Neal, who performed outstandingly in the inquiry.
	I also wish to thank the large number of organisations and individuals who gave up significant time to submit evidence in writing and orally. Several institutions and organisations were most helpful in arranging visits, both in this country and overseas. The American institutions in Atlanta, Washington DC and New York, which are listed in the report, were not only welcoming but extraordinarily helpful. They, too, are faced with much the same health problems as we have in the United Kingdom. Similarly, visits to the World Health Organisation, the Institute of Migration and the UNAIDS programme in Geneva provided important information and input to our report.
	The report has received a generally positive welcome from all quarters. We appreciate the comments made about it, in particular, the comment from the Health Protection Agency that it is,
	"A welcome, valuable and timely report that re-emphasises the threat of infection".
	We have made 24 recommendations in our report. I am pleased to observe that, on the whole, the Government response is timely and comprehensive. New structures, such as the new and emerging Infectious Disease Panel, have been or are to be set up to assess the threat from infections, many of which have been identified in our report and many of which are zoonoses or animal-derived. A new inspector of microbiology will promote high quality clinical and public health microbiology. There is the provision of £12 million to tackle hospital associated infection, particularly the alarming growth of MRSA—methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—which has come to national media attention. The Science and Technology Sub-Committee on Resistance to Antibiotics warned against this situation in 2001.
	With our first recommendation the Government concur that there is still room to improve management and infrastructure and to identify and plug gaps. Mention is made of economies of scale by the integration of expertise and the building of synergies between disciplines through the Health Protection Agency. But it is not clear whether there will be increased resources for this. We hope that additional resources will be made available. It is important that the Health Protection Agency is not compromised in what the Select Committee believed to be an important starting point in its existence.
	In our inquiry it was well recognised that each component part of the health service section performed satisfactorily. But one of our early recommendations is that effective communication and collaboration between all organisations involved in infectious disease services should occur, and that an outline of roles and responsibilities should be published to that effect. It is not clear from the Government's reply, however, when or whether they intend to map out those responsibilities. We hope that they will do so.
	The committee sees an important role for the Health Protection Agency, which will be set up under the Health Protection Agency Act. That role includes commissioning research, obtaining and analysing data and providing laboratory services. A particular recommendation is that the Health Protection Agency be provided with resources to take on specific and primary responsibility for integrating surveillance relating to human, animal and food-borne infections, in view of the importance of food-borne infections as a cause of ill health. Much ill health is due to that.
	The Government's response identifies the various bodies covering the area, including Communicable Diseases Control, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Food Standards Agency and the Zoonoses Group. We welcome the promise of close links between the agencies, but we are concerned that, historically, informal links with memoranda of understanding with a large number of committees and groups can lead to problems of inadequate communication. We seek assurance that they will work this time and that the lines of responsibility for effective, integrated surveillance are more clearly drawn than is indicated in the reply.
	My colleagues in the inquiry will deal with other areas of the report and the Government's response to it. I wish to comment further on research and development, especially on vaccines. Vaccination is a major and effective approach for the control and prevention of infectious disease. Yet the committee has been concerned that the UK's capabilities for vaccine production have declined over recent years. The Government agree that there is a significant deficit in vaccine capacity. They comment that multiple projects are under way to increase that capacity, to identify the gaps and develop action to bridge them.
	The sub-committee is strongly of a mind that vaccine development should be facilitated in the UK and that the Government should maintain clear evidence-based guidelines of vaccine requirements. The sub-committee wishes to see a secure supply of vaccines in the event of a major global epidemic. We point out that overseas suppliers, on which we rely for many of our vaccines, would be under pressure to give priority to their own country's needs. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—previously known as CAMR and now HPA Porton—could well serve that purpose. It is hoped that the Government will consider favourably an application from CAMR for that purpose. The HPA comments that it would be imprudent not to have the HPA Porton capability. We share that opinion and the view that it should be properly funded.
	Since the publication of our report various vaccine production groups have represented that they have provided, or can provide, important vaccine development—for example, for the prevention of pneumococcal bacterial meningitis and pneumonia of children. It is said that the development at Speke can handle a pandemic of influenza, although I understand that the production of a tuberculosis vaccine at that site is to be discontinued.
	At the National Institutes of Health in America, we were told of the small business initiative for small companies willing to take the financial risks inherent in the development of a vaccine. If the vaccine was patented, the company was obliged to make every effort to bring it to market. In the United Kingdom that is approached by a tax credit system to help small, innovative biotech companies in the development of novel vaccines and others. It remains to be seen whether that will be more effective than the NIH scheme; however, there is no doubt that small biotech companies should be encouraged to take up vaccine development.
	The inquiry anticipates a clear, outstanding role for the Health Protection Agency to set standards and clarify lines of accountability. We have made a series of recommendations for action by the HPA, including one to develop collaborative relationships with organisations concerned with tackling infection, including the devolved administrations, environmental health departments and the Food Standards Agency. While they agree with that recommendation, the Government consider it ambitious to expect a proposal on the issue to be published by April 2004. Our reply is, if not by that date, when? We expect it to be fairly soon.
	Similarly, we are aware of the importance of international collaboration and the availability of personnel for secondment. We trust that, not only the HPA, but the Department of Health in general, can be involved in international infectious disease control. The HPA points out that resilience needs to be built into its staffing to respond to such demands, and we agree. The HPA's corporate plan, which has just been published, proposes a bold and ambitious programme. Clearly, there is much to be done in drawing together the expertise of a wide range of health, scientific and related staff so that it can respond swiftly and in a co-ordinated manner to new and existing threats from infectious disease. We wish it well. But to do well it must be given the resources to develop into the kind of structure that we need, and of which we will be proud.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fighting Infection (4th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 138).—(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, for two reasons. The first is to express my congratulations and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, who was chair of our sub-committee, and my gratitude to my colleagues both inside and outside your Lordships' House, with whom it was a pleasure to work on this report. I add my thanks to Rebecca Neal, our Clerk, who looked after us with tact and efficiency.
	The second reason that I am pleased to speak is that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, that the Government can be congratulated on listening to our report and responding to it in a generally positive way. That shows that they are taking seriously the fight against infection. Their response contained several promises to deal with matters raised in our report. Indeed, one of the promises was implemented last Friday with the announcement that health trusts will appoint directors of infection control. The directors will apply the strict rules of hygiene to help establish the culture of prevention about which we spoke in our report.
	The need for these simple rules of hygiene was clearly demonstrated when we visited Birmingham City Hospital. We were shown how taking steps to ensure that wards were cleaner, equipment was looked after for cleanliness, gloves were worn and hands were washed helped to stop the spread of hospital-acquired infections. We were told that about 100,000 people a year pick up infections in hospitals in Britain. Simple procedures helped to prevent the spread of yet more sophisticated infectious agents. We were also told that simple procedures were sometimes left undone because of the pressures of work and time. Making somebody responsible for ensuring that those procedures are carried out can only be helpful, and I hope that that person will also have authority. For my part, since that visit to Birmingham, I wash my hands a lot more frequently.
	The other thing that impressed me about our visit was our meeting with an environmental health officer. We met him in a group together with a number of other people involved in infection control, such as senior doctors and administrators. However, it was obvious that he was bottom of the pecking order, despite being right in the front line of the fight against infection. My noble friend on the Front Bench does not need me to remind him that the message from every general since Alexander the Great is that the effectiveness of the best battle plan depends crucially on the training, equipment, morale, skills and the numbers of frontline troops. We were concerned about virtually all of those aspects regarding environmental health officers. The Health Protection Agency, in its response, also shares our concerns, speaking about "staffing becoming desperate". I agree.
	From the Government's response, they obviously think that entry to the profession should be of degree standard. Why? It will enable environmental health officers to bring more analytical skills to the job, be better trained in science and will raise the status of their work. They will have parity of esteem with other professions that have degree entry and it would deal with training needs. However, what about recruitment? Will the increased status mean more pay? All new entrants will do a degree course from 2004 and bursaries will be available, but what will happen to recruitment between now and when the students of 2004 graduate? Perhaps the Minister will consider some of the more successful schemes in industry in which employers are compensated for giving staff time off for training. Perhaps that would help to fill the gap.
	This problem is a difficult one. Although environmental health officers are employed by local authorities, their work impacts on the Department of Health, the environment, law enforcement, the Home Office and the Food Standards Agency. Perhaps the lines of responsibility should be clearer. The Government are offering placements in all those various departments and agencies, but we need to recruit people in the first place. That is where the Government will have to do better.
	The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, reminded us of the committee's visit to the United States. One experience that impressed me was our visit to the TB control centre at Harlem Hospital in New York. There was an item in a paper recently about the relatively high incidence of TB among immigrants in Britain, both legal and illegal. The item implied that the matter was thought to be too sensitive to deal with openly, and hinted that the rise in the incidence of TB was due to immigration.
	It is a sensitive and controversial issue, but I was impressed with the robust and open way in which the health commissioner in New York dealt with it. He impressed us all with his vision and vigour, and we were all impressed by his comparative youth—he seemed to be younger than my own children. The health commissioner let it be known through official and unofficial channels that free testing and treatment for TB were available to all and that they were entirely confidential. The names and addresses of immigrants—legal and illegal—would not be disclosed to the police, the Internal Revenue Service or the immigration authorities, before, during or after treatment. All that was said quite openly, because otherwise people would not come forward for treatment.
	I learned that the treatment is difficult and unpleasant and takes the best part of the year, and that continuity is essential. Patients had to come to the hospital so that staff could watch them take their tablets. Those who did not or could not come to hospital had their tablets taken to them by couriers, who watched them take their medicine. The couriers obviously did that at great personal risk, because there could be no police protection. We met a courier and some of the nurses involved in that work. It appeared that what motivated them was that they, too, had been TB sufferers and the cure had changed their lives. They were anxious that others should also benefit. The health commissioner told us that the exercise had had a major influence on reducing the incidence of TB in the city. We all came away pretty impressed.
	What happens if the newspaper report is correct and there is a high incidence of TB among immigrants in Britain? Obviously, illegal immigrants cannot go to the NHS and they are a danger to the rest of the population. Do we ensure that patients take their medicine by watching them, as they do in New York? This is an important part of fighting infection and we should be rather more open about it. Indeed, we referred to the whole matter of openness in our report. We recommend that the Health Protection Agency creates a post of infectious disease specialist to act as spokesperson to communicate with the public and create increasing awareness of infectious diseases. I agree with the Health Protection Agency that this problem cannot be restricted to one person—that is not practical. However, the Government's response says that the Health Protection Agency will develop its own communications strategy to raise the understanding of health protection by the public.
	Raising understanding usually means trying to influence or control the media so that the desired message gets across. However, we have learnt that, although it may get the correct message across, it erodes trust in the message. We do not want that to happen in the fight against infectious diseases, because it could have disastrous results. We have all learnt in recent years that winning the argument in matters of public health is not enough. We have to win hearts and minds as well, and we cannot do that just by raising understanding.
	The Health Protection Agency will have to make hard decisions about fighting infection—medical and social decisions. Indeed, that will be put to the test next week when a play will be broadcast on television about the MMR vaccine. I understand that the play is based on real events, but that the truth will not be allowed to get in the way of a good and powerful drama. The screening of the programme will be an opportunity for the Health Protection Agency to show its strength and commitment to winning hearts and minds and fighting infection. The Government should get on with establishing the Health Protection Agency as a completely independent body like the Food Standards Agency. It can then get on with the difficult business of informing the public about the risks of infection and winning the trust of the public that the information is independent and the best available.
	Another reason for getting on with the Health Protection Agency Bill, is that it should enable the agency to be more commercial and less bureaucratic in its relationship with the biotechnology industry. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, touched on that issue. The Health Protection Agency's paper in response to our report deals very satisfactorily with its relations with other public bodies, but it ignores its relationship with business.
	The biotechnology industry is less confident and less proactive than it was two or three years ago and the tone of the Government's response seems to reflect that time instead of now. Firms seem to be anxious about where a new class of antibiotic will come from as germs become more resistant to the old ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, reminded us. The Health Protection Agency will have to be more proactive in persuading industry to work with it. Indeed, it should become an instrument of innovation, as is likely to be described in the report of the DTI later this month. I hope that the Minister will look at that report. It is relevant, because it deals, I think, with the role of public purchasing and innovation.
	In a way, this is my swansong as, by rotation, I have now left your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee. Even though the membership may change, it is important for the committee to return to its recommendations from time to time to see whether they have been implemented—or not, as the case may be—not only in matters of fighting infection and the associated topic of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but also on the many other matters that your Lordships' committee has studied. Returning to those issues will ensure that they are taken seriously. Keeping witnesses informed of progress so that they will remain interested is also important, because they will then see that their time and effort have not been wasted. That will ensure that their vital evidence continues to flow. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is committed to the issue, so I am sure that the committee is in good hands under his chairmanship.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed by my noble friend Lord Haskel for having been able to serve on the committee, which I joined shortly after joining the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, guided the committee through some complex waters and Rebecca Neal's support, always offered with good humour, was welcomed by all members.
	The report is just the beginning. I reiterate the assertion of my noble friend Lord Haskel that the topic will need to be revisited in five or 10 years and kept under constant review, because the infections and the problems that they pose will probably become greater.
	I was fortunate to be able to visit the headquarters of the World Health Organisation in Geneva as part of the committee's inquiry. I became starkly aware there of the importance of the links between the clinical and epidemiological services here in the UK and those operating at a world-wide level. I hope that the Government will ensure that those international links survive the reorganisation in services, because levels of expertise are fast-tracked through them.
	A lot has been said about antibiotic resistance. To underline my plea to revisit the issue possibly in 10 years, I shall highlight some of the data on methicillin resistance. In 1992, about 3 per cent of staphylococcus aureus infections were resistant, but ten years later, that proportion had risen to 43 per cent. That is an alarming increase in antibiotic resistance. As has been emphasised in the report, training at all levels for those who work in health is crucial. I shall return to training in a moment.
	The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, is to be commended for the amount of work that he has done in looking at problems of hospital-acquired infections that were highlighted in recent reports and for the initiative following the Select Committee's report. The two groups of hospital-acquired infections are hard to distinguish; namely, those that have occurred simply because patients have been in a particular environment and would otherwise have been fine, and those where the person has been so ill and susceptible in hospital that he would either have become infected with his own organisms or be at a very high risk of cross-infection. The difficulty is that a lot of those infections result in death and we do not have any good national data on the number of deaths through hospital-acquired infections. In fact, to ascertain that data is incredibly difficult. A large, complex, case-controlled study that looks at all the risk factors may be required to separate those cases where infections are genuinely hospital-acquired from those where the infection is a contributory factor and therefore associated with the death.
	The report, Winning Ways, shows that some participating hospitals have been improving their reporting procedure, but that many are unfortunately unchanged and show worsening data. Clinicians on their own are not very good at differentiating bacteraemia—that is, blood-borne infection—from other local infections. Clinical microbiologists have a crucial role to play in making such differential diagnoses.
	That point was highlighted by a general practitioner, Dr Arthur, who, following the death of his wife from MRSA, had launched a campaign that coincided with, but was unknown to, our inquiry on hygiene in hospitals. From looking at anecdotal reports of coroners, he suggested that current estimates of deaths from hospital-acquired infections may be only a quarter of the true figure, although his study also included anecdotes from people who were going to report a death. He has suggested that a tick-box be required on a death certificate, but it may be that such measures will vastly oversimplify the complex data that need to be collected.
	However, the report emphasised the need to collect data and to do so in ways that are compatible with all parts of the service. The Government have responded to that with their initiative on the electronic capture of data. I emphasise that it is important that data entry is simple for the end user or the data collection that the Government are rightly striving to undertake will be incomplete.
	Cleanliness in hospital environments has been emphasised. In the Government's response to the report, the importance of that, particularly in relation to respiratory syncitial virus, was highlighted. That virus can last up to six hours on hard surfaces and causes severe infections in children and babies. Often, those children need to be ventilated for a time.
	I have already alluded to the publicity generated by MRSA. That may survive for variable amounts of time and seems to be killed off by sunlight. Another infection has not featured in the headlines: clostridium difficile, which causes devastating diarrhoea and debilitates patients. Unfortunately, that can persist indefinitely on surfaces and needs to be washed away.
	The importance of hand-washing has been emphasised by everyone and the Government have responded strongly to the need to improve it. The size of the job to be done should not be underestimated. Alarming data from the USA suggest that half of healthcare professionals do not adequately wash their hands after visiting the toilet. I have not found any such data from our own hospitals, but perhaps that is an issue that needs to be investigated.
	Patient-to-patient transfer of infection has highlighted the need for hand-washing, but the increased use of electronic equipment such as syringe drivers, infusion pumps and electronic temperature and blood pressure devices, which go from one bed to another, must be monitored as a source of transferred infection, particularly when spores such as clostridium difficile can last indefinitely in the crevices, creases and screw tops of such equipment. So, one of the highest priorities must be hygienic hospitals.
	The report addressed the issue of training at undergraduate level and made a plea for the incorporation of adequate training in infections into curricula. Sadly, curricula throughout the UK have a long way to go. In my medical school, we are fortunate to have academic microbiologists who have taken a lead in ensuring that microbiology remains on the curriculum, but I know of medical schools in which it has faded from the curriculum. I believe that that has also happened in the teaching of other healthcare disciplines. The Government's action to influence universities will have to be forceful, if we are to make sure that the criteria for infection re-enter the curriculum.
	Yesterday, I asked one of our students whether she felt that she had been adequately educated in hand washing. She was able to recount to me the practical session using a UV light to show who was not washing their hands adequately. She said that, on clinical placement, she saw staff moving from one patient to another on the wards without adequately washing their hands. As a student who had just had her hand washing training, she did not feel able to stop staff and tell them that they ought to wash their hands in between. She had noticed that, on many wards, there were no adequate sinks between beds to encourage hand washing. She commended Llandough Hospital, in which alcohol hand-cleaning devices were available everywhere. She noted that positive move, but it is sad that she did not notice it in every hospital in which she had been on placement.
	There is remarkably little training in infection issues on most postgraduate courses. At the moment, infection control does not form part of ordinary clinical appraisal. Every clinician in the service at every level needs feedback on rates of infection on their ward and among their clinical team, so that there is ownership at every level in the individual team. The initiative launched in the past week in England will, I hope, ensure that that discipline comes through the service. In Wales, the strategy has been slightly different. They have gone for a bottom-up approach, feeding data back. I hope that, with one system or another, we will see some improvement.
	Training the next generation of microbiologists poses huge challenges to the Government. There are only 39 whole-time equivalent consultants in infectious diseases and tropical medicine in England. Half of those are academics. New posts require substantive funding, if they are to continue. Serious consideration may need to be given to the creation of academic posts with long-term funding, to ensure that there is an attractive career path for the next generation of clinical microbiologists. The research and development that we will need will depend on the academics, as well as on the clinicians.
	There has been a shortfall in the number of funded specialist registrar training posts. Unfortunately, the devolution settlement between England and Wales has meant that funding for two and a half posts has been lost from Wales. There are consultant posts in clinical microbiology that have been vacant not just for months but for years. Adequate training of the next generation of consultants is crucial.
	I have a concern that, when the funding for microbiology laboratories in trusts is no longer ring-fenced but is handed over to PCTs, there may be a tendency to provide funding that will merely maintain laboratories rather than encourage them to flourish. I hope that that concern is misplaced, but I urge the Government to watch the development of laboratories carefully. The Health Protection Agency Bill is before us, and the Health Protection Agency must work in harmony with the National Health Service in Wales to deliver public health outputs at local delivery and at a high level.
	The need for research was highlighted in the report and recognised in the Government's response. The Government plan to enhance funding for research into communicable diseases. That was stated in their response. However, there is a need for people with academic training and with sufficient remit to get the high calibre research that is needed. The quality of the proposals competing for funding for research is relatively poor. Some of the projects seem relatively simple, so they do not get funding in open competition.
	The issues relating to consent in the Human Tissue Bill may also make some areas of research more difficult. For instance, in work using collections of sera, it would be difficult to obtain specific consent for the sera to be used as part of a research programme.
	Looking forward, we need to consider other forms of infection control, and there is a huge gap in knowledge. The design of effective interventions to reduce the prevalence of hospital-acquired infections and to limit the development of antibiotic resistance seems like an obvious area of research, but it is not undertaken to an adequate degree because there is inadequate funding for such research. Areas such as the way in which microbes communicate with each other and quorum sensing may become important, but the development, through the pharmaceutical industry of yet more antibiotics will probably lead simply to increasing complacency that antibiotics will ultimately do the job and that new ones will be found and will breed out further resistance.
	The last area of education that I shall address is public education. The need for a public education campaign is huge. There is public complacency and a misguided belief that antibiotics can cure infections, hence the tremendous shock when patients die of infections. Infections always have been and will remain life-threatening.
	A study of primary school children in Leeds revealed poor hand washing. Children who had episodes of diarrhoea and infection had worse hand-washing practices than children with lower instances of gastro-intestinal infection. Perhaps the public education campaign should be at that level. Could people such as soap opera stars be used to influence public behaviour in hygiene? Some good public education materials are being developed, particularly in e-learning, but we must ask whether they will reach the public.
	Our report highlighted a huge job for the Government to do. In their response, the Government have taken all the areas seriously, giving a commitment to work on them. I ask the Government to consider keeping the matter under scrutiny in the long term. Unless it remains under long-term scrutiny, it may drop from public consciousness, and we will have a whole set of new infections.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his continued hard work in sharing this latest inquiry into fighting infection.
	The noble Lord also chaired a sub-committee on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. The report came out on 17th March 1998. I had the honour of serving on that committee. That report stated, at page 42, that MRSA posed one of the biggest challenges to infection control. Dr Mayon-White called for a national MRSA strategy and pointed out that MRSA was,
	"a marker for cross-infection generally".
	Therefore, a strategy to control MRSA would bear down on other infections as well.
	The time has come to be more forceful. I like the cover of this report. I congratulate the person who suggested it and designed it. But Box 14 on page 38 should be much stronger. It states:
	"Handwashing is a key intervention to reduce spread of infection and yet it is known that many health care workers do not wash their hands when moving between patients. Research could inform those who organise services how better to design wards and run services so as to minimise the barriers to handwashing".
	Surely, with around 5,000 lives being lost every year from MRSA, the word "could" ought to be replaced with "should" or "must". The rise in highly resistant MRSA and other serious infections is put down to poor hygiene, more advanced surgery techniques and the over-prescribing of antibiotics. At long last the Government have got the message: the complacency that has existed in many healthcare establishments cannot continue. Would it not be wise to screen staff as well as patients for MRSA when they come into hospital? The committee were concerned to find that, given the significant demands placed on NHS trusts to fulfil their clinical roles, there were as yet no plans to provide any material incentive for NHS laboratories to rise to the public health challenge.
	The committee noted that the recent House of Commons Health Select Committee report on sexual health expressed concern about the impact of recent changes in management of laboratories conducting surveillance of sexually transmitted infections. The rise in HIV and other sexually transmitted infections is very worrying. The British Medical Association has called for an end to waiting times for sexual health treatment. It stated:
	"We have now reached crisis point in genito-urinary medicine with many clinics having waiting times of anything up to eight weeks. We need to return to a position where they can see patients within 48 hours".
	I hope that we can hear some hopeful words from the Minister so that GUM clinics will be able to cope with the increasing demands.
	The report puts great importance on the need for good surveillance. It is worrying to note that the sub-committee found that information is not shared between all those responsible for surveillance. On page 20 of the report, the committee recommends that, given that there is little vaccine production capability in the United Kingdom, by April 2004 the Government should develop and publish a strategy to ensure secure access to supplies of vaccine in the face of national outbreaks of infectious disease.
	There have been some tragic cases of children dying of Fujian flu lately. Are vaccines to be made available to protect children and other vulnerable groups against that dangerous strain of flu? The report recommends that the Government should fund enhanced surveillance of the impact of vaccine programmes on the incidence of disease, particularly when new vaccines are introduced. It also recommends that the Health Protection Agency be provided with resources to take on specific and primary responsibility for integrating surveillance related to human, animal and food-borne infection at national, regional and local levels in order to bridge the gaps that currently exist between those areas of specialty.
	The report states that GPs receive inadequate training about best practice in identifying and treating infections. One problem area seems to be when and when not to use antibiotics. In some cases, antibiotics are vital to life. Near where I live in north Yorkshire, a man 41 years old, married with two young children, lived on a farm and undertook relief milking. Some months ago he died of leptospirosis, or Weils disease. The organism leptospira icterohaemorrhagiae is harboured and excreted by rats and enters the body through a bite or skin abrasion and infected water. I am told that in New Zealand at-risk farmers and people working with water would be vaccinated. Should that happen here?
	SARS alerted many people to the fact that one never knows what infection will come next. With many drug-resistant infections emerging, that is a serious matter. I am glad that the Government are responding. I look forward to the Minister's reply. Only last week, at lunch, a guest told me that his sister-in-law had been infected by MRSA in a private hospital in Yorkshire. Worse still, the next person to use the room also caught MRSA.
	Infections have no boundaries. I hope that the Health Protection Agency will also cover private hospitals and nursing homes and medical and nursing staff as well as patients who use and work in both private and National Health Service hospitals. I hope that there will be no discrimination. Fighting infection must mean that everyone works together for a safer society.

Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am grateful for the privilege of serving as a member of the committee led so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. As well as my noble friend Lady Finlay and the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, I too pay tribute to Rebecca Neal who was the Clerk who facilitated not only the work of the committee in an efficient manner, but also gave me personal support in my introduction to the work of the sub-committee of the Select Committee.
	I, too, welcome the Government's response to the committee's report. I shall focus on the Government's announcement last week of the appointment of a director of infection control to all NHS trusts. I was particularly taken with the words of the Secretary of State, the right honourable John Reid, when he commented that,
	"old fashioned hygienic methods were needed. There really is no magic solution. It is about hard work and old fashioned methods".
	Having trained as a nurse 50 years ago, I truly can claim to have been brought up in old-fashioned methods of cleanliness and aseptic techniques. The ward and theatre sister was the person who controlled the environment and was responsible for cleanliness. When dressings had to be applied, damp dusting was carried out two hours before any wound was exposed.
	I admit that there have been many advances in the past 50 years with regard to sterilisation and wound management. However, as has already been said today, I am very aware that the discipline of basic procedures—for example, hand washing—has slipped in many instances. Recently, I witnessed a surgeon removing sutures, not having washed his hands either before or after the procedure.
	As a chairman of an NHS trust, I was very aware of the convoluted lines of management control to rectify dirty lavatories, bathrooms and patient areas.
	I realise that the contracts with commercial firms contain quality standards, but someone from management is not always available to deal with a problem. One has first to go to an NHS manager who then contacts the commercial firm, and by then, time has passed. I therefore endorse the Secretary of State's statement—there is a lot to be done which requires hard work.
	Will the director of infection control be an executive member of the board or a non-executive member in an advisory capacity? The lines of communication and organisation of management control within the health service are very complex. We know that they have to cross lines of organisational management to get things done.
	I wonder whether the director of infection control might meet the same problem that I met when I requested that toilets in the hospitals were inspected on an hourly basis, as they are in motorway services, supermarkets and public areas. My request had to be considered first by the chief executive of the trust and the facilities manager. A discussion then took place with the commercial contractor. The costs and staffing implications had to be assessed, which resulted in a three-month delay before any action could be taken. The results of this investigation showed that the cost was outside the budget, so there was a further delay in implementing the regular checking of toilets and bathrooms.
	I believe this is where decisive action needs to be taken. The director of infection control will need to have the accountability and authority to take executive action. This therefore needs to be clearly spelt out in the new director's job description. The same goes for food hygiene, catering and the wearing of uniforms.
	We all accept the old adage, "prevention is better than cure", but, as has already been said, we need to reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections. This is urgent, given the need not only for reduction in suffering and mortality but also to reduce costs and increase efficiency. It is estimated that the stay of a patient contracting a hospital-related infection is extended by 11 days and often more in the case of MRSA.
	I welcome the Government's commitment to enhancing the education programmes. Health professionals and all staff working in the environment of healthcare need to have basic training—indeed, health professionals need to have more in-depth training.
	I have concerns that the primary care trusts need to be involved in considering the ways in which control of infection will be effective. They, too, may need a director of infection control.
	I believe that as well as hard work and old-fashioned methods, there needs to be an additional word—"discipline". It is not a popular word in this day and age, but historically, from Florence Nightingale onwards, it has been proved that a disciplined approach to the control of infection is effective.
	I also agree with my noble friend Lady Finlay that the Government should be encouraged to have a regular review of the control of infection.

Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, the Science and Technology Committee tries hard to choose subjects for study that are timely and relevant. Rarely in its history can it have hit the mark so squarely as it did this time—hardly had it begun to take evidence than the SARS outbreak began its march across the world.
	I, too, wish to acknowledge the contribution of the Academy of Medical Sciences which, some months earlier, drew the committee's attention to this area as one in urgent need of review. I also wish to acknowledge the excellent work of our two special advisers and our hardworking Clerk.
	Having settled on this topic, the committee also had the wisdom to invite the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, to chair the inquiry. This he did with consummate skill and patience, and I think your Lordships will agree that the report which was produced under his guidance is a worthy successor to that of the earlier inquiry he chaired on antibiotic resistance, which has had considerable influence on both sides of the Atlantic.
	As has been pointed out by others, infectious disease accounts for a great deal of illness in the UK and world wide. Around 13 million people die from infections each year, and about half of those are children under the age of five. Unfortunately, as other noble Lords have pointed out, in this country we have come to regard infections as something we do not need to bother about. In the last century, the combination of good hygiene, clean water, good sanitation and, in the latter half of the century, antibiotics, virtually eliminated most of the serious infections from the developed world. For this reason, when it comes to training nurses and doctors, infection has a rather low priority in the curriculum.
	Our report made the point that the situation was changing rapidly and urgent action was needed if we were to avoid serious outbreaks. I, too, pay tribute to the way in which the Government have responded to the challenge of infections, even though the solutions they have chosen may in some ways differ from those that we favoured. The most important thing is that the problem has been recognised and action has been taken.
	The subject is enormously broad. For that reason, I will speak on just three aspects of infection and its management—the role played by animals or organisms in the emergence and transmission of infection, the need for effective means of surveillance, and education.
	The problems we face are partly new and partly old problems better understood. It has been known for many years that while some micro-organisms that cause human disease pass directly from person to person, there are many others for which the transmission pathways are more complex and involve other micro-organisms, insects or higher animals. The role of mosquitoes in the spread of malaria and that of rodents and fleas in the spread of plague are relatively well documented. However, a host of other pathogens are spread by complex vector paths that are very poorly known.
	One such pathogen that may be coming our way is the West Nile virus. It may be of particular interest to the House because it appears to be one from which elderly men are especially at risk. The virus has been spreading from north Africa for some years and is now affecting both coasts of the United States. It can affect horses and some birds, such as crows, although the final vector, as far as human beings are concerned, seems to be the mosquito. Intriguingly, and with the wisdom of hindsight, the first indication of the arrival of the virus on the eastern seaboard of the US was the unexplained discovery of dead crows in the fields.
	I have given just a few examples, but the picture I wish to paint is of an immensely large and complicated web of life in which, numerically at least, human beings and higher animals are a rather insignificant part. Within that web there is an enormous range of relationships—different food chains, different relationships that may be competitive, symbiotic or parasitic. None of the elements of the web are static; they are continuously evolving in response to the pressures of their immediate environments, albeit at different rates. We become particularly aware of that when a newly evolving species happens to be a pathogen in human beings or animals, such as when a new strain of flu emerges from south-east Asia.
	Noble Lords may reasonably ask what is new, given that this situation has always been with us and we have learned to live with it. The answer is that this complex web of interdependent organisms, which we still understand only dimly, is being affected by at least three important factors: first, the very rapid global movement of people and goods, particularly foods; secondly, the rapid—at any rate by historical standards—displacement of the world's climatic belts, for whatever reasons; and, finally, the rapid increase in the world's population and a consequent increase of both urbanisation and deforestation.
	Modern communications allow us to travel readily to almost any part of the world or to eat crops that were harvested only a few days earlier in another continent. That allows other passengers to travel as well, particularly insects, bacteria and other micro-organisms. They arrive into an environment in which many will not survive; but others will, and a few may flourish and possibly wreak havoc on the local ecosystem. When that part of the ecosystem happens to be ourselves, we recognise the arrival of a new infectious disease. What happened with the introduction of rabbits into Australia can happen with microbes as well. TB is on the increase in parts of this country and the United States.
	Organisms are not necessarily dependent on hitching a free ride on people or goods; shifts in the world's climatic belts mean that the distributions of fauna and flora migrate with them. The human population therefore has to become used to living with a range of new pathogens that arrive as the climate changes.
	Finally, the doubling of the world's population over the last 50 years has been concentrated in the less developed regions. It has proved difficult for people to continue to make a living on the land and they have migrated to the cities, which often did not have the sanitation or other facilities appropriate to receive them. When those people brought with them their pigs and their birds, it was an ideal environment in which microbes that caused no great harm in animals could jump the species barrier and develop into a virulent human pathogen. Indeed, as the CJD/BSE/scrapie story unfolds, it may turn out that species jumps can occur in much less extreme circumstances.
	The conclusion is that, with infectious disease, we are rapidly entering new and largely uncharted waters. We are almost certain to see new and unwelcome additions to the range of pathogens to which we are exposed. Some will simply be new to us, while others will be new to the world. Our greatest danger will be the complacency that has come upon the general population in the western world, through the combined effects of antibiotics, clean water and sanitation. As the report showed, there is a new and growing danger.
	What is to be done? It is clear that, although the medical profession and drug companies have an important role, probably the most important task, as various noble Lords have pointed out, lies with us in our everyday lives—in our personal hygiene, in the proper maintenance of our water and sanitation facilities, and in the way that food is managed in our shops and restaurants. We have seen the decline of traditional, labour-intensive, but effective means of infection control, such as scrubbing and cleaning, using soap and bleach. Soap and detergent are particularly effective against many bacteria because they can break down the jelly-like outer protective coating of the bacterium. That is a matter of education in school and elsewhere, and the message must be got through that although we may have got away with it in the past, this is a new situation and is potentially dangerous.
	Finally, on surveillance, it goes without saying that if the arrival or outbreak of a new infection is recognised early, there is a reasonable chance of managing and containing it. GPs must be able to report suspected new outbreaks with no more inconvenience than a mouse click on the consulting room computer. The information must be properly managed centrally and, if appropriate, matched with patterns that emerge from calls to NHS Direct. GPs must know rapidly that a new infection is about and, if necessary, be reminded of the symptoms. That must be a priority within the new IT system that is being planned for the NHS. If appropriate the information must be passed on to neighbouring countries—and in that connection we must continue to play a full part in the World Health Organisation. Surveillance must involve not only the medical profession, but the veterinary profession, biologists and microbiologists as well.
	If we are not to return to the misery of earlier centuries, these challenges demand the concerted and co-ordinated efforts of the Department of Health, the HPA, Defra, DfES and the DTI. Is the Minister satisfied that the processes of co-ordination and collaboration between the disparate groups that are in place or planned for the immediate future are sufficient and robust? If they are not, the future is bleak.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I must make one small apology. I was not a Member of the committee; thus, when I read through these documents, I first had the feeling that the matter was comparatively straightforward. After more reading, I decided that it might not be so straightforward. As I went through the Government's responses, I had the fortunate feeling that the Government have something in place that responds to many of the concerns that were raised—primarily the point about co-ordination, which is dealt with, at least in part, by the Health Protection Agency, or HPA. As I was reading, I kept trying to remember exactly what HPA was, and came up with an amazing variety of combinations.
	I hope that the Health Protection Agency is something that does what it says on the tin, because something that co-ordinates the services available would meet many of the concerns raised in the report. The primary problem is that they do not guarantee, do not claim to guarantee or cannot guarantee that there is enough spare capacity to handle the unexpected. The Government may say that they have something there. However, in terms of public capacity and testing and analysis in public laboratories, what capacity do they regard as enough to handle any new outbreak? Exactly what do the Government have there? I may have missed it in their response, but if they could answer that question, we might come back to the subject later with an idea of the Government's thinking on spare capacity. I refer to spare capacity for situations that are not run-of-the-mill or normal. In the light of that information, we might then have a chance to see what we can go on to do.
	Of the many other considerations that were raised in the report, the one that really struck me was that most of what we are talking about is very old science. Taking into account the idea that most of the diseases that we deal with in future will be known, we are talking about diseases that will strike at the most vulnerable, as has traditionally happened.
	An unfortunate fact is that our public health seems to be declining in terms of nutrition, vitamins and the protein balance. Illnesses such as rickets have re-emerged in our society. As many noble Lords have said, new immigrants are entering the country who may bring in new infections. The health standards in their countries of origin tend to be lower than ours. I refer to certain other underprivileged groups, for example, those in prison. Educational failure, health failure and offending records tend to go together. What is the Government's thinking regarding those vulnerable groups?
	Will the new structure address those vulnerable groups, and what will it do to improve their treatment? The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to TB cases being treated in the Harlem Hospital in New York. We need programmes that offer treatment to immigrants, whether illegal or not. We should do immigrants a good turn in that respect for the simple reason that it would avoid TB being spread in our society and infecting more people. By saving those people we would save ourselves. Will such an approach be encouraged in our society? Asylum seekers and new immigrants have had a very bad press. A series of nasty, snide digs have been levelled at them as people who bring infection with them. Unless we introduce a scheme along the lines of that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, we shall encourage a series of social ills as well as physical ones. Do the Government have any plans to introduce such a scheme involving joined-up government thinking between the Health Protection Agency, immigration services and the Prison Service? If such a scheme is not introduced, those vulnerable groups will miss out on treatment.
	As regards children's health, I encourage the Government to consider not just infection itself but to ask themselves why infections are taking hold. The Government should further examine the ways in which family benefits are most effective in encouraging families to eat nutritious food and thus ensure that the fertile ground for infection is cut away. The Government should consider whether education on nutrition should be given with benefits. Of late we have heard a great deal in this House about obesity. People may be eating the wrong things. Will the Government address the issue of healthy eating as well as just giving out benefits? The spiral of economic deprivation leads to bad nutrition. If we can interrupt that spiral, I hope that we shall make some progress.
	Unless the Government are prepared to return to very old-fashioned values, for example, regarding the regular scrubbing of hospitals—as I believe was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton—much trouble will arise. Unless they also address the fact that we just do not know what will happen next in this context and build in enough spare capacity to deal with the worst case scenario that we can imagine, we shall experience further problems. That will happen irrespective of how well we deal with the infections of which we are aware. SARS was the most recent of a variety of infections. I draw the Minister's attention to a passage in the report referring to the common cold. Everyone I know has a cold at the moment, myself included. I attribute that to the presence of a small toddler in my house. Such infections are easily spread and we are always playing catch-up in trying to tackle them. I hope that the Government have some idea of how they are prepared to tackle such infections.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby and his committee for their exhaustive work on this subject. I should like to add my congratulations to the Clerk, Rebecca Neal, who had the unenviable task of summarising 395 pages of evidence into the 36 pages of the report itself—a major piece of precis that anyone should be proud of.
	Public health, which is what we are basically talking about here, has been defined as,
	"the science and art of promoting health, preventing disease, and prolonging life through"—
	and I emphasise this—
	"the organized efforts of society".
	Society, though, can do a certain amount for itself. I shall discuss that in a minute. Preventing disease brings me straight into a major criticism of the report. "Arrangements for formal collaboration", says the executive summary,
	"are poor, and lines of accountability are unclear. Collaboration is difficult: many organizations and health professionals are involved in fighting infection".
	You can say that again! Centrally we have the Department of Health. Under this we have the Public Health Laboratory Service, soon to be devolved to the Health Protection Agency. Then there are the nine departmental regions; under them are the strategic health authorities; and under them the primary care trusts. Five bodies are backed up by pathology departments, microbiology and PHLS labs. At the sharp end are the hospital physicians and the general practitioners. All need training; a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I reserve judgment on whether the HPA will be able to cut this particular Gordian knot.
	Consider a wedding. The guests are likely to come from all parts of the country. They drink and, more importantly, they eat. It takes only a tiny bit of mayonnaise or undercooked meat for a salmonella outbreak to occur. All unbeknown to the guests, they carry it around and some will inevitably spread it to their families and neighbours. It may be quite quick and easy to establish the epicentre of the outbreak, but how is the information to be transmitted around the country? Is it, as has happened in the past, to go up through this long bureaucratic chain of command, resulting in a "Dear Doctor" letter from the CMO, and taking weeks if not months to get the information to where it is really needed—the hospital departments and GP surgeries? Would it not be far better for the local laboratories to report immediately to their PCTs, and the PCTs to talk to each other? In these days of the much vaunted e-government, it should be very easy to compose an e-mail and copy it to all PCTs. This is dealt with in Sir William Stewart's evidence on page 316 of Volume 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said, speed is of the essence.
	Salmonella is a comparatively local problem, but what about an international one such as SARS? In preparing for this debate, I was told that this disease was originally to be called simply, Acute Respiratory Syndrome. The tautological word "severe" was added to avoid the acronym, ARS! That is far worse than the inelegantly named CHAI—the Turkish word for tea—that I referred to not long ago. After that little aside, let us look at SARS. According to the WHO, during the outbreak in the Far East, a total of 8,098 people became sick, of whom 774 died. The terrifying thing about SARS is the speed at which it gets around, inevitably, I am afraid, with the world shrinking faster and faster due to cheap travel and bad air circulation and scrubbing of air in aeroplanes.
	The first case was reported on 16th November last year as an unknown acute respiratory syndrome in Guangdong Province, South China. A small paragraph on 14th February 2003 in the Weekly Epidemiological Record reported 305 cases and five deaths from an unknown acute respiratory syndrome. The Chinese Ministry of Health informed the WHO the same day. In passing, as the news had already broken, the Chinese lost no face in that. However, looked at from this distance, the speed of more general notification was slow. We now know that a medical doctor from the province checked into the ninth floor of the Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong with atypical pneumonia. He infected at least 12 other guests and visitors to that floor.
	So far, the outbreak is confined to China, but on 7th March—not very long afterwards—new reports come in from not only Hong Kong, but Vietnam. Approximately 20 hospital staff become sick with similar symptoms. Three days later, the problem in Hong Kong has escalated. Within hours of reporting being ill, 18 healthcare workers are diagnosed. On 14th March, a flight attendant reports with SARS in Singapore. Contact tracing, a vital weapon in public health, will subsequently link her illness to more than 100 SARS cases in Singapore. To cut a long story short, the following day—15th March—SARS is reported in Canada. On 15th May, it is reported in the UK. On 22nd May, a second outbreak occurs in Toronto. By 6th June, there were 82 cases in that second outbreak.
	From then, we know that through proper quarantine regulations the epidemic was controlled. However, it is not only how quickly, but how dramatically SARS affected the far east, Canada and several other countries that is so worrying, as many of those are not developing nations with inadequate healthcare provisions or vaccination programmes, but developed countries with a healthcare infrastructure and economy remarkably similar to our own.
	Closer to home, in spite of the recent scare stories, hyped naturally by the media, I remain proud of my part in the introduction of the MMR vaccine. It was introduced primarily because, although we had a working vaccination programme for the individual diseases, we were not targeting the right people. Men, who were not vaccinated against it as babies, were carriers of rubella, with all its dreadful effects on pregnant women and their babies. The average number of birth defects as a result of rubella infection has fallen from 250 a year before 1970 to an average of four—yes, four—between 1991 and 1995. If that is not success, I do not know what is.
	The only issue in the case of the MMR vaccine is the media attention surrounding possible side effects. I will go to my grave believing that the fact that autism and Crohn's disease present themselves at around the time that the MMR vaccination is given is coincidental and not causal. After all, do not babies learn to run around the age of two?
	Only 84 per cent of babies received the MMR vaccine in 2001–02, 8 per cent lower than the peak coverage achieved in 1995–96. Over 90 per cent is required for proper control, so even with single vaccines, the courses of which are often not completed, we face an upsurge in not only rubella but measles and mumps as well. I agree with my noble friend Lord Soulsby about the rundown of vaccine production in this country, but that is not exactly the point that I have just made. Why do we vaccinate human beings but Defra sets its face against the same thing in animals, something we have learned over the BSE crisis? Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer.
	Friday's report, Winning Ways, by the Chief Medical Officer was well reported in the papers that I read, concentrating as it does on diseases in hospitals. However, it is only a partial response to the committee's report. Hospitals are well known to be dangerous places health-wise. I once came round from an elective operation complaining to the surgeon of a sore throat. "Nothing to worry about", he said, "it's probably the anaesthetic". A little later the anaesthetist came round. "Oh dear", he said, "your throat's very red", and gave me some soothing medicine. Soon after I started to sweat. The following day a rash appeared, getting progressively worse.
	It was not until the day after that that a friend came to visit me. It so happened that he had just retired as the head of the local public health service laboratory. He looked at me and said, "If it weren't impossible, I'd say you had scarlet fever". A physician was summoned, my temperature of 105 degrees was taken, and the condition was—surprise, surprise—confirmed. I was pumped full of antibiotics and recovered. That occasion was not the hospital's fault; I had been in contact with an undiagnosed scarlatina case, and the operation had exacerbated the problem.
	That just goes to show how things happen. Is it any wonder that flu, legionnaires' disease or MRSA spread like wildfire in a hospital, where not only is the temperature warm, but the patients' resistance is inevitably at a low ebb? The very fact, too, that methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, to give it its full name, has a toehold in a hospital makes it inevitable that it will spread. Indeed, the latest figures show that the number of people recorded as dying of it is rising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said.
	I spoke earlier of the organised efforts of society, but society could do a certain amount for itself. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke about this. How often have we been in a public toilet in a restaurant and seen people not washing their hands? How often have we seen unfinished courses of antibiotics returned to the pharmacist, or worse, thrown in the bin? I am no pharmacologist, but is it surprising that diseases become resistant to antibiotics when that happens? The CMO's report makes the point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about nurses and doctors washing their hands after touching patients. A new pair of surgical gloves each time on originally clean hands might be a bit more practical, but who am I to argue?
	Interestingly, a recent article about Ebola from the Congo makes the same point. Health officials there are apparently trying to stop the habit of friends and relatives touching the bodies of dead people. Not sterilising and reusing catheters and drips but throwing them away is another suggestion in the report. That is a matter for negotiation, I suspect, because there is cost involved, although I have no idea how much it is. However, it is something that the National Health Service will have to sort out. Surely it is wise advice.
	I question the role of what will surely come to be known as the super de-bugger, an upgrading of an existing management post referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. In days of yore when we had proper matrons, that would have been one of her roles. Surely it should be again, and cleaners should come under her.
	On a slightly different subject, I remember Her Royal Highness Princess Anne making the keynote speech at an early AIDS conference, and describing HIV/AIDS as an evil monstrosity perpetrated by mankind upon itself, or words to that effect. That is true not only of HIV/AIDS, but of all sexually transmitted diseases and many others besides.
	Most of us were brought up with the slogan, "You've got to eat a peck of dirt before you die". I did a little research. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, loves to rush to the dictionary, and I did exactly the same thing. There are two gallons in a peck, and I reckon that that is a heck of a lot of antibodies. I doubt that a child born today will eat more than half a pint. No wonder minor sicknesses abound; it is my view that the health police are often doing more harm than good.
	Finally, I was struck by Professor Weinberg's comment on page 378 of volume two that the role of surveillance was to provide early warnings of an increase—he might have added the word incidence—of infection. All well and good, but unless the warning is passed on quickly, we will be putting Pelion on Ossa. The written evidence of the Infection Control Nurses Association makes the similar point that the collection of data is not standardised, and may even be false. It takes time to check the accuracy. So it may, but I doubt whether it is that damaging or that long.
	That returns me to my central point, for which I shall quote the PHLS written evidence on page 134 of volume two. The most telling definition of "surveillance" is that,
	"surveillance is the delivery of information for action".
	On this matter, we cannot have action without the wide spread of information, arriving quickly at the point of delivery of that action.
	There is so much in the report that I have inevitably only scratched the surface, despite speaking too long. I trust that the Department of Health will build on Sir Liam's report and continue taking action on this section of public health, which is so vital to every man, woman and child. The committee's report should help them to do that, and I trust that the department will accept it lock, stock and barrel as a valuable aid in the war on infection.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the committee for the work it has done on this important issue and the chance that this debate provides to discuss the committee's work and the Government's response. I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and of my noble friend Lord Haskel who will now leave the Science and Technology Committee.
	The Government's response focused on the strategy described by the Chief Medical Officer in his report Getting Ahead of the Curve, which was published in January 2002. I shall use this debate also to outline the further work the Government will be doing as a result of the document Winning Ways published last Friday on action to reduce healthcare associated infections. Despite the temptation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I shall not venture into the areas of MMR or BSE.
	The CMO's strategy observes that,
	"this country is internationally respected for its work on infectious disease surveillance",
	and that we have,
	"traditionally had a much stronger public health system than many other countries";
	but that at the same time,
	"the present system falls short of what is necessary fully to protect the public health".
	That is the position from where we start. For the first time ever the Department of Health now has in place a strategy for tackling infectious disease. The strategy brings together a great deal of information about infections and sets out a number of actions, which in total provide a systematic approach to preventing and controlling infectious disease. Some noble Lords have drawn attention to the importance of co-ordination, with which I agree. We have tried to bring the threads together in what was a rather disparate area in that strategy.
	Recent events have made us all much more aware of the risks from infections as well as chemical and radiological threats. Those aspects were explained persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who drew our attention to the role of animals and birds as carriers and some of the problems arising from easier international transport, which has increased the risk from imported infections carried by people or foodstuffs. We are also seeing a greater number of patients with immuno-deficiencies that make them more susceptible to infection. We now have the spectre of deliberate release of pathogenic organisms. All those factors plus the emergence of SARS earlier this year—mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Oxburgh—have led us to look afresh at how we can best protect the health of our population from infectious diseases. Such issues and others have been well recognised by the committee's wide-ranging report.
	First, I shall describe some of the progress that the department has made since Getting Ahead of the Curve was published before responding to some of the specific recommendations in Fighting Infection.
	The new and emerging infections panel mentioned in Sir Liam's report has been set up. The function of the panel is to identify key areas for action and to advise on priorities. The panel reports to the Chief Medical Officer and held its first meeting in November 2003. It is expected to meet every six months. The CMO has also announced two new actions to help NHS staff combat infections. One was new funding of nearly £12 million to help NHS hospital pharmacists monitor and control more carefully the use of antibiotics. The other was the extension of mandatory national surveillance of healthcare associated infections which include blood stream infections and serious adverse incidents associated with infections, such as ward closures due to gastro-enteritis.
	I shall say more later about the new action plan on healthcare associated infections. Alongside, we have action plans for tuberculosis and hepatitis C which will be published soon. The action plan for TB will have clear objectives, but the issues surrounding them are complex. That is why we are taking time to ensure that they are thoroughly thought-through. I remind my noble friend Lord Haskel that we have TB testing capacity at Heathrow and Dover, for example, for people coming into this country. An action plan will be published early next year to support implementation of the department's Hepatitis C Strategy for England following consultation last year.
	We have implemented the proposal in Getting Ahead of the Curve to transfer to NHS trusts those laboratories in the Public Health Laboratory Service that carried out routine clinical diagnostic microbiology activity, and are transferring to the Health Protection Agency those that carry out specialist and reference microbiology. The transfer of laboratories to the NHS took place on or by 31st March 2003.
	The Health Protection Agency now has, or commissions, a public health laboratory in every region. Steps have been taken to ensure that all the laboratories transferred to NHS trusts are appropriately resourced and motivated to continue to meet their public health responsibilities. We intend that standard national operating procedures will be put in place throughout the NHS microbiological pathology service so as to improve quality and ensure consistency of reporting arrangements.
	The department's programme for modernising pathology services includes a requirement for all NHS pathology laboratories to be enrolled for accreditation by an appropriate accrediting body. The HPA is in the process of agreeing service level agreements with relevant NHS trusts which will define their health protection outputs, including reporting infectious diseases and submitting samples and isolates for further analysis. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Addington, some reassurance on the action we are taking on capacity.
	A new inspector of microbiology post has been created to champion and promote the delivery of high quality clinical and public health microbiology services. We expect to have the inspector in place next month. He will initially be located within the Department of Health and the post will transfer to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in late 2005 or early 2006.
	I am well aware of the doubts that have been expressed by noble Lords and others about the rationalisation of microbiology laboratories and what has been perceived as a break-up of an effective public health network. But my information is that the laboratory transitions have all been carried out smoothly and the public health business has not been disrupted, as some feared.
	As the Fighting Infection report described, the role of vaccines is key to protecting our population from infections. A programme of research to inform key policy decisions relevant to the future use of vaccines in the UK is currently being undertaken. This programme covers a number of topics, including evaluating new and potential vaccines for use in the UK childhood programme and in adults. Undertaking this programme of research will allow the introduction of vaccines at the earliest opportunity and in the most cost-effective manner. I will come shortly to the committee's recommendations concerning a strategic vaccine facility.
	A number of noble Lords mentioned the Biosciences Innovation and Growth Team report. In response to that report, I have established a high-level working group, the Research for Patents' Benefit Working Party, chaired by the department's director of research and development, Sir John Pattison. This will look at how we can take practical steps to implement some of the ideas and issues recommended in that report. It will report to me and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State within about six months.
	The Chief Medical Officer's strategy also describes our progress in developing clear and comprehensive contingency plans to reduce the impact of any future terrorist attack. This is a vital part of our ability to fight infections. However, as these measures will be dealt with in the Government's response to a different Select Committee in another place, I do not propose to go into such detail here.
	I turn now to the subject of the new Health Protection Agency. The Chief Medical Officer's strategy proposed the creation of that agency. It was established as a special health authority on 1st April 2003, and in this Chamber we shall shortly be debating the Bill to make the agency a non-departmental public body. The Health Protection Agency integrates into one organisation expertise which was previously dispersed throughout a number of different bodies. I shall not go into that detail. It also works in partnership with the National Radiological Protection Board, whose functions will be transferred to it under the new legislation. Therefore, there has been a considerable move to integrate and co-ordinate much expertise dispersed around a number of organisations.
	We believe that the Health Protection Agency is the first of its kind in the world. Its creation is an essential, ground-breaking, development for the protection of health in this country. For the first time, we have an integrated, coherent organisation which spans the major areas of health protection and brings together local, regional and national responses to emerging threats. In response to the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who asked whether we were planning for the unexpected, the emergency division of the HPA carries out regular exercises to test our ability to respond to a number of scenarios and it continually models projections for different diseases.
	The HPA published its first corporate plan setting out 12 strategic goals, the first of which is to prevent and reduce the impact and consequences of infectious diseases. The department will be working closely with the agency to develop its plans and targets for future years. The HPA is providing its own response to the committee's report.
	I now turn to the Government's response to the recommendations made by the Select Committee. We have considered the recommendations very carefully and I hope that that shows in our published response. We welcome the great majority of the committee's recommendations and will be working with the HPA and with other stakeholders in the NHS and local and central government to put them into effect. In some areas, of course, we do not see exactly eye to eye with the committee. Where that is the case, we have made it clear in our response.
	We noted the committee's recommendation for a central strategic vaccine facility. We have not been convinced by the evidence that we have seen so far, and we have yet to see a clear and persuasive business case that describes exactly what such a centre would provide. The development and production of a vaccine is not a rapid response to an emerging infection, and we need to be very clear about the purpose before we commit the substantial funding which it would require.
	We are also not sure about the committee's recommendation that we should produce a definitive publication of all the roles and responsibilities of those involved in responding to infections. We believe that the staff across the country who are involved in this area know very well what they have to do and that they would not necessarily be helped by the publication of such a description. The establishment of the HPA makes the position far clearer, as I believe many noble Lords recognise.
	My noble friend Lord Haskel raised the issue of the recruitment of environmental health officers. We are working with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and I am sure that colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will study very carefully my noble friend's concerns.
	Finally, I turn to the issue of reducing healthcare-associated infection and the report, Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England, launched last Friday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Chief Medical Officer. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Masham, spoke eloquently on those issues, as did other noble Lords. The report represents an important action plan for tackling such infections. It recognises that the problem of infection in hospitals and other healthcare settings is a challenge to health services around the world. The level of healthcare-associated infection among patients in the US, Australasia and most European countries, including the UK, is estimated to be between 4 and 10 per cent. Most countries are adopting similar strategies to control healthcare-associated infection.
	Despite the efforts that we have made thus far, we have not made the progress that we would like to see in this country. That is why the Chief Medical Officer is proposing seven action areas where change is required. Those are: active surveillance and investigation; reducing the infection risk from the use of catheters, tubes, cannulae, instruments and other devices; reducing reservoirs of infection; high standards of hygiene in clinical practice, which many noble Lords mentioned; the prudent use of antibiotics; management and organisation; and research and development. I saw the CMO talking about this subject on television last week. He expressed it very graphically, when he said that it is a case of "no more Mr Nice Guy". The approach that we are adopting will involve a return to some of the good hygiene practices in hospitals that many noble Lords have mentioned.
	The new report recognises the need for infection control to be everyone's business and it will ensure that senior management change the culture by the designation of a director of infection prevention and control. Perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that he will report directly to the chief executive and the trust board. That is set out in Winning Ways. The new Inspector of Microbiology and the National Patient Safety Agency will, for example, work jointly to ensure the use of "root cause analysis" and the methodology of hazard analysis and control point. This is a risk-analysis technique used successfully in the food industry to reduce food poisoning.
	The Chief Medical Officer will publish on his website for the public a listing of rates of healthcare-associated infection in each area of the country. A new audit of deaths from healthcare-associated infection will be established and a proportion of the deaths that occur will be investigated in order to identify avoidable factors and lessons to be learnt. A programme of high-quality research and development involving £3 million will be established to underpin effective action and ensure that breakthroughs in the understanding of healthcare-associated infection are translated rapidly into benefits for patients.
	I turn briefly to a number of points in this area raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of vaccination against the Fujian strain of flu. Of course, when flu vaccines are ordered, new strains cannot always be anticipated. The vaccines being used this year, for example, provide some protection against this new strain. They are available to those aged over 65 and to high-priority groups, including children who suffer, for example, from asthma and other chronic conditions.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what about the other children who seem to be at risk?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that the Chief Medical Officer has tried to give reassurance on that point. However, I shall obtain more details and write to the noble Baroness.
	A number of noble Lords raised the issue of whether there will be sufficient microbiologists. I do not want to go over the details of that but I commend to noble Lords page 19 of the Government's response, which sets out the work being done to increase both the number of specialist registrars and the number of posts in and around the area of microbiology.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also raised the important issue of sexually transmitted diseases. We are aware of the lengthy waiting times and staff shortages in genito-urinary clinics. In addition to the extra £5 million to improve genito-urinary medicine that we announced in response to the Health Select Committee's report on sexual health, we recently announced a further £15 million to improve genito-urinary medicine's premises. We are working with strategic health authorities to ensure that those funds are targeted on those most at need. The Government have made it clear that they have a strategy in this area which includes a very powerful public education programme. However, we are not complacent about this matter and recognise that it is a very important area of public concern.
	Perhaps I may also mention that general cleanliness, although not the answer to MRSA, has featured in performance ratings for NHS trusts over the past few years. From those one can see that there has been a very substantial improvement in general cleanliness in hospitals, which reflects the attention being given to this area by NHS trusts.
	In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important issue, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for the work he has done in chairing the committee and producing such a good report. A good deal of change is being made on this important and difficult topic of fighting infection. We hope and believe that the new structures and approaches will work towards improving public health and will co-ordinate matters in a better way, which is of concern to a number of noble Lords.
	I assure noble Lords that this area is one which the Government will keep under very close review because of the dangers it presents to public health. We shall have an opportunity to return to some of these issues when we debate the detail of the Health Protection Agency Bill in the new year. Much of what we have discussed tonight is about getting human beings to change their behaviour. That is not always the easiest thing to do.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their important contributions to the debate, and in particular for addressing the major issues so effectively. There has been an air of strong support for the report, Fighting Infection, and it is important that there should be.
	We take note of the Minister's response. We are encouraged by it and look forward to seeing the various actions put in place, in particular the development of the HPA. I think that we are slightly more optimistic than my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale about the HPA and its ability to cut what he describes as the Gordian knot on the many issues concerned with health care and the control of infectious diseases. However, as the Minister indicated, I believe we shall return to the many issues dealt with in the report at a later date. No doubt some of those will arise when the Bill comes to this House. In the mean time, I thank all noble Lords for their participation and strong support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I have to announce that in the Division on the Motion on the Summer Recess 2004, the numbers voting "Not-Content" should have been 114, not 115 as previously announced.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock.